Politics

[Didacus]

15 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Yes, clearly Biden has done worse.  By any measure.  The evidence against his criminal behavior is so far beyond overwhelming that I would laugh, except it's beyond that point, too.  

It's bizarro world now.

I'm done picking the least bad candidate.  Others were right in the last few elections who brought this up.  I have every reason to believe that voting makes no difference, anyway - at least in my state.

I've said it many times before:

LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY!

(never liked democracy, always said it would fail... I actually think we might see a collapse in North America in the next 3-5 years)...

[fides' Jack]

13 hours ago, little2add said:

compared to Binden Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump is a Saint.

Agreed.

13 hours ago, little2add said:

for, instance trump didn't hand over 400 billion+ $ of  American dollars to support and promote the Ukraine/Russia War. 

Agreed.

13 hours ago, little2add said:

trump is responsible for Abraham Peace Accords, the end of late term abortion and a lot more good and righteous things.

Agreed.

Unfortunately for myself, when we pass from this world and are called to account for our own sins, we will not be compared to Biden, Clinton, Bush, or Obama, but to Christ Himself.  This is also true for Trump.

[Didacus]

California is now considering a bill that would remove Trump from the presidential ticket outright...

It's just insane how the left is attacking this guy...  by extension his supporters as well.

[Nunsuch]

A lot of the constitutional concern over Trump's eligibility (based on his possible violation of Section 3 of the XIV Amendment) is being raised by conservatives, including members of the Federalist Society. This isn't some sort of random political challenge. See this article for explanation and names of some of those raising concerns. Of course, this would definitely be challenged in court, and who knows how the conservative SCOTUS supermajority would rule. This is very uncharted territory, but not ridiculous at all. 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/19/politics/donald-trump-fourteenth-amendment-2024-race/index.html

[fides' Jack]

5 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

This is very uncharted territory, but not ridiculous at all. 

It's only not ridiculous to those people who believe all of these points:

a) Trump encouraged people at the capital on Jan 6, 2021 to insurrect
b) The people who committed crimes on Jan 6, 2021 at the capital were trying to insurrect
c) The people who were in the capital before the riot were not themselves trying to insurrect
d) That there was no fraud in the 2020 election, or at least not enough to make a difference

 

[Nunsuch]

24 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

It's only not ridiculous to those people who believe all of these points:

a) Trump encouraged people at the capital on Jan 6, 2021 to insurrect
b) The people who committed crimes on Jan 6, 2021 at the capital were trying to insurrect
c) The people who were in the capital before the riot were not themselves trying to insurrect
d) That there was no fraud in the 2020 election, or at least not enough to make a difference

 

You have already told us repeatedly that you do not believe in facts, in expertise, or in actual evidence. So there is nothing I can say to persuade you, because what I know (yes, know--as I teach and write about these things, although you apparently believe you have as much knowledge as someone who actually studies stuff) is based on facts, expertise, and evidence.

Tell me: do you also believe that all forms of expertise are irrelevant? Would you trust someone who simply declared themselves to be a doctor, a surgeon, etc., if you had a medical problem, or would you like them to have actual credentials? How about an airplane pilot? Yes, some of us have spent years developing actual expertise. You are free to dismiss it, but that doesn't make it any less real, or reliable.

[little2add]

 

 

55 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

someone who actually studies stuff) is based on facts, expertise, and evidence.

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

 

it's a fact, (fides') Jack

 

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

You have already told us repeatedly that you do not believe in facts, in expertise, or in actual evidence

This is not true.  I believe strongly in all of these things.

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

although you apparently believe you have as much knowledge as someone who actually studies stuff

This is also not true.  I believe that I know enough about certain subjects to be able to call BS when I see it.  That's really all I do here when I cause offense; I call BS in a confident (you'd probably say arrogant) manner. 

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Tell me: do you also believe that all forms of expertise are irrelevant?

No, certainly not.  I wouldn't trust a mechanic to perform surgery anywhere on my body, nor a surgeon to work on my car.  I have a great deal of respect for the abilities and intelligence of engineers, for example.

Most occupations do not seem to require any higher education.  Sure, some job responsibilities require more or less time in an higher-education institution.  For instance, I would expect doctors, and especially those with highly-specialized skills (such as brain surgeons), to spend more time learning about the human body with regard to their branches of medicine. 

However, that's really a double-edged sword.  It's very apparent that the longer people spend in academia, the less likely they are to break from the indoctrination they learned to blindly trust there.  One example of this is the current moratorium of any research into alternative nutritional science.  It's proven now that the nutritional guidelines of the last 70 years, especially regarding cardiovascular health, were driven mainly by lobbyists who were paid by certain mega-food companies (such as Kellog's) to promote increased sales in cereals and grains, and downplayed (and even condemned) the importance of meat and especially saturated fat in the average American diet.  They pushed bad science into government policy, and worse, into medical advice.  As a result, America is now largely fat and diabetic.  But even this could be reversed, if doctors were more honest.  As it is they are largely unwilling to consider any evidence that goes against the god of "science" they learned to memorize and repeat in university, similar to how a boy in a Catholic school might learn to memorize and recite the Apostle's Creed.

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

or would you like them to have actual credentials?

Credentials I care less about.  Experience matters far more than credentials.  Credentials are a checked box, and can easily be false and manipulated, and even bought rather than earned.

I would trust a pilot with 50 years of experience who recently had his license taken away because he wouldn't get a shot long before I would trust a board-certified pilot who just got out of school and aced all his exams.

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

yes, know--as I teach and write about these things

What things, specifically, do you teach and write about?  Politics?  

That's the difference between you and me; you see me as arrogant because I write confidently on subjects in which I disagree with people who claim to be experts.  But I never said "I know what I'm talking about because I teach and write on these things."  To me that sounds incredibly arrogant - that you aren't willing to learn something from someone (albeit online) whom you consider to be less knowledgeable.

I certainly don't consider you to be less knowledgeable than myself in any subject - just more prideful about your own education, and less willing to have an open mind.

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

you apparently believe you have as much knowledge as someone who actually studies stuff

On what subject?  I do study some.  But are you saying that to know something you have to study it?  Or are you implying that in the course of teaching and writing, you also study?  I would hope so, and I assume that's what you meant. 

I do the same thing - just not in the academic world.  So are you saying that in order to be knowledgeable in any subject, you must study in that subject in college/university, and if it's not in a college or university, then your knowledge in that subject is wrong?  Or are you saying that in the course of your accumulation of knowledge, if you come to an understanding of a subject different from that espoused by those generally regarded as experts of that subject, that you are wrong?

I'm sure you would agree that both of these positions are anti-scientific.

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Yes, some of us have spent years developing actual expertise.

If that expertise was mostly gained in textbooks, that's really where I start to become suspicious.

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

You are free to dismiss it, but that doesn't make it any less real, or reliable.

Naturally, just as my accepting it doesn't make it any more real or reliable.  This is precisely why, in my efforts to determine the truth of a claim, the very first and most important thing I consider is the claim itself.  It doesn't matter who is saying it (unless it has a divine source, of course - but if it does we have a deposit of faith to prove or disprove it), what their credentials are, how long they studied, how much knowledge or understanding or wisdom they have, how kindly or politely they say it, or how many other people believe it.

2 hours ago, little2add said:

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

 

Thanks!  More opportunity for me to study.  

Side note: I keep getting James Comer and James Comey mixed up in my head...  

[Nunsuch]

Reading random websites that confirm your preconceptions is not "studying" something. I have a PhD in politics and history, and am a tenured professor in an R-1 institution, with appointments in both disciplines. I have published extensively in double-blind reviewed scholarly journals. This counts for a heck of a lot more than how you may "feel" about something. It also means reading deeply and extensively in reputable sources--not all "scholarly," but nonetheless reputable, across the disciplinary *and* ideological spectrums. Reading "a bunch of stuff" is not the same, not even close.

"Experience" does not count equivalently to credentials. You seem to think that "credentials" have not substance to them. They do. 

Of course one can be self-educated. But that is not what you are, based on the sources you repeatedly read and post here.  

[BG45]

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Reading random websites that confirm your preconceptions is not "studying" something. I have a PhD in politics and history, and am a tenured professor in an R-1 institution, with appointments in both disciplines. I have published extensively in double-blind reviewed scholarly journals. This counts for a heck of a lot more than how you may "feel" about something. It also means reading deeply and extensively in reputable sources--not all "scholarly," but nonetheless reputable, across the disciplinary *and* ideological spectrums. Reading "a bunch of stuff" is not the same, not even close.

"Experience" does not count equivalently to credentials. You seem to think that "credentials" have not substance to them. They do. 

Of course one can be self-educated. But that is not what you are, based on the sources you repeatedly read and post here.  

Assuming that was directed at Fides since post before it was "You've chosen to ignore content by fides' Jack."  But I applaud that expertise and hard work at least? Like seriously, it's not a sprint, it's a marathon, and the marathon doesn't stop at the degree; you've got to keep learning, keep up to date, publish, teach, do service work, etc.

 

Not at an R-1, but have my nose to the grindstone too at times.  I have a PhD in Criminology, a tenured position in a university system, with multiple peer reviewed publications (would never last at an R1 though).  I've volunteered extensively in related fields, done internships before the PhD in fields related to it, and bring in professionals from law enforcement, corrections, and the judiciary to my classes; also nonprofits, a lot of our majors end up in the nonprofit sector.  I've also done a fair amount of non-profit program evaluation, some of it involving COVID-19's impact on the nonprofit sector in my state - and literally had a student call me from what ended up being his deathbed asking for an extension as he suffered (and within days died) of COVID-19 complications, before we had access to the life-saving vaccines Fides seems to despise so much.  FWIW I told that kid to focus on getting better, he had an A already and I didn't want him working on stuff while sick at semester's end.

 

I'll admit to getting frustrated at my field sometimes, when it comes to research, because of blind peer review.  But it's part of the process, and often criticism that at first may seem unfair, really just is, "Okay I need to up my citations and better explain why this matters." And sometimes it's, "Well, I'm just wrong.  It happens."  

 

Not sure if it's the same at an R1, but the most frustrating thing in academia for me is Service.  I'm on half a dozen committees between department, college, and university levels, hold a Directorship, a seat on our Institutional Review Board, etc. and then also need to do recruitment drives, site visits for dual enrollment programs with local high schools, act as a blind peer reviewer for multiple journals, and all that fun stuff.  Teaching's definitely my favorite part, though again, given a small university, I'm currently lined up for a Fall load of four undergrad classes and two graduate classes, because of the "needs of the university."  At least the two grad classes are adjunct pay for overload?  Well, never mind, one is.  The other is a practicum that only one student is enrolled in (but needs to graduate on time, so I'm not going to say no to teaching it), and the Powers That Be feel that's more "an independent study, and you know [BG], we don't pay faculty for those."

[little2add]

On 8/21/2023 at 1:48 PM, Nunsuch said:

This is very uncharted territory

IDK, Trump didn't escalate the NATO alliance in Ukraine, or fund over 400 billion dollars  (by latest account) into the war machine...  meanwhile the industrial military complex business is booming and making record profits. 

maybe Trump is not the culprit here, but rather the war profiters ?

I am not scholar or political expert, however, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize the world is going to Hell under the current administration.  

 

 

[little2add]

 

[fides' Jack]

18 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Reading random websites that confirm your preconceptions is not "studying" something. I have a PhD in politics and history, and am a tenured professor in an R-1 institution, with appointments in both disciplines. I have published extensively in double-blind reviewed scholarly journals. [...] It also means reading deeply and extensively in reputable sources--not all "scholarly," but nonetheless reputable, across the disciplinary *and* ideological spectrums. [...]

Good job.

18 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

"Experience" does not count equivalently to credentials. You seem to think that "credentials" have not substance to them. They do. 

I agree - it counts for considerably more than credentials, as I said before - and I think that's generally true regardless of the field or discipline.  I don't think credentials are entirely lacking in meaning.  But as I said before, they can be, and are, sometimes entirely bought.  Of course this is more true in some fields than others.

18 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Of course one can be self-educated. But that is not what you are, based on the sources you repeatedly read and post here.  

So it's true you believe that in your pursuit of truth, who is speaking is more important than what they are saying.  That's a principle I fundamentally disagree with, excepting that the Who is God.  Certainly regarding politics and science, that position is completely anti-scientific. 

We have given our colleges and universities and "scientific" journals the power and authority to say who is and who is not an expert in any field.  When we criticize truth because of the source of that truth, rather than the claim itself, we have already lost civilization.

That's the problem with the world; we have made a false god out of "science", and in so doing we've turned away from God, but also from true science, and we've adopted a religion of academia.  The priests of this religion are the "experts" - so regarded by their peers and accepted by the world in general.  They have their high "degrees", which is the sacrament of orders in our pagan society.  (I admit, at this moment I am a bit ashamed of my own degree.)  We worship "knowledge" and seek to gain as much as possible, instead of seeking true understanding and wisdom.

I don't need to read or study any sources to see this fact in front of me, everywhere I look.  We are so backward...  God save us!

[Didacus]

GO TRUMP!!!

CHOO-CHOO!  Trump-Train back on the rails!

The interview with Tucker has over 160 million views!

Looks like he will be elected for a third time!

[Nunsuch]

On 8/23/2023 at 1:05 PM, fides' Jack said:

 

I agree - it counts for considerably more than credentials, as I said before - and I think that's generally true regardless of the field or discipline.  I don't think credentials are entirely lacking in meaning.  But as I said before, they can be, and are, sometimes entirely bought.  Of course this is more true in some fields than others.

So it's true you believe that in your pursuit of truth, who is speaking is more important than what they are saying.  That's a principle I fundamentally disagree with, excepting that the Who is God.  Certainly regarding politics and science, that position is completely anti-scientific. 

We have given our colleges and universities and "scientific" journals the power and authority to say who is and who is not an expert in any field.  When we criticize truth because of the source of that truth, rather than the claim itself, we have already lost civilization.

 

Good grief. How the heck did I (or any of my colleagues) "buy" my credentials? Do you have any idea what is involved in earning (yes--earning) a PhD? And tenure at an R-1? Do you really think that substantive credentials are somehow a matter of luck or random chance? I do NOT believe that "who" is speaking" is more important than what they are saying. But there need to be actual criteria for assessing the substance of what they are argument. This is called testing a hypothesis, and supplying evidence. There ARE such things as facts, and reality.