Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) On 2/24/2019 at 10:03 PM, The Nehor said: Voting a certain way to annoy people you do not like. The epitome of reason. That’s not the whole reason, or even the primary one — though I admit the idea has a measure of perverse appeal to me. No, I’ve come to believe that the Trump Administration has been good for the country. And with the odious slate of candidates that has been served up by the Democrats so far, it is more than imperative that President Trump be re-elected. But I will admit it was the irrational and widespread hatred of him that caused me to take a closer look at him. I detest torches-and-pitchforks mentality and groupthink. Edited February 28, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I am only for sure about me but maybe others are different. I doubt many are though. If reason ruled we would not be surrounded by astrologers, climate change denier, believers in the Illuminati, proponents of the electric universe theory, flat earthers, and those people who like dead children known as anti-vaxxers. Everyone thinks they are reasonable. Very few are and even those who are have stupidly huge blind spots. You see, consensus emerges from debate every time a divided jury is able to overcome its division and arrive at a unanimous verdict. And that must happen countless times. Have you ever seen “Twelve Angry Men”? You might find it instructive. It originated first in the 1950s as a live television drama and shortly afterward was made into a theatrical motion picture. You might be able to find one or the other of the iterations on YouTube.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Gray said: Considering how much Russia has been attacking us and our allies lately, the answer is yes. Conditions are nothing like they were during the Cold War.
Gray Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Conditions are nothing like they were during the Cold War. Different, but Russia remains a bitter enemy dedicated to our downfall. In some ways its worse because they're taking more direct action against us and our allies.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Different, but Russia remains a bitter enemy dedicated to our downfall. In some ways its worse because they're taking more direct action against us and our allies. You must have been born after 1990 if you think conditions are worse today than during the Cold War. 1
Daniel2 Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 On 2/23/2019 at 1:41 PM, MustardSeed said: It seems to be popular here, just wondering if it’s as effective as it is popular or if it’s just a way of letting off steam. Recently someone offered a fresh point of view that allowed me to open my heart and mind to a new way of thinking...I might try to identify the elements that made it so. Or the absent elements, as it were. At any rate, it *felt* good. I quite enjoy conversation that invites new thought. Absolutely; and often. I’ve changed views on a variety of topics since I started posting here 15+ years ago.
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: You must have been born after 1990 if you think conditions are worse today than during the Cold War. Conditions can actually be worse while the fear and hysteria were worse then. 1
Gray Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: You must have been born after 1990 if you think conditions are worse today than during the Cold War. Nope, way before then. But perhaps you don't mind POTUS taking orders from the Kremlin? That certainly wasn't the case during the cold war. The dismantling of NATO is certainly high on Putin's wish list, and perhaps not coincidentally high on POTUS' list as well. Edited February 25, 2019 by Gray
clarkgoble Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 A debate that doesn't have at least the possibility of changing ones mind isn't worth engaging in. At that point it's not a real debate but pure sophistry. 1
clarkgoble Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Conditions can actually be worse while the fear and hysteria were worse then. Number of proxy wars between Russia and US today? Risk of nuclear war? Threat to invasion of Europe (ignore for the moment former soviet states like Ukraine) I think people forget what it was like during the cold war. Today we get, a few thousand in spending on bad memes on Facebook and funding of a few fringe groups in the US and EU. Contrast this with even the funding of fringe groups in the cold war. (Note that some of the funding, such as on civil rights groups, was counterproductive to the Soviets yet was clearly being done to stoke race wars) Had Trump not won we'd not even be having these discussions. Trump was a horrible candidate but he was put where he is far more by media complicity - particularly int he primaries. Throw in the controversy over HRC's server, Weiner having the email on his laptop during his investigation, NY Time fixation on such issues (since they thought HRC would easily win), and Comey's last minute announcement of investigation over Weiner and potentially missing HRC emails, and anything Russia did was lost in the margins. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned about Trump. But the idea Russia swung the election is silly. Their actions were a blip compared to what they did in the cold war. Edited February 25, 2019 by clarkgoble 4
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Number of proxy wars between Russia and US today? Risk of nuclear war? Threat to invasion of Europe (ignore for the moment former soviet states like Ukraine) I think people forget what it was like during the cold war. Fear and paranoia was what it was like. Most of what I have read about Russia during the time suggests they were more concerned about the threat from China. Nuclear war is still a very real possibility. We still have our triad of nuclear deterrence and they still have most of theirs, enough to hurt us in any case.
cdowis Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) Yep, , I remember once, a very long time ago, that someone convinced me that I was wrong. A few days later I suddenly realized that I was correct after all. How embarrassing -- made sure THAT never happened again. Edited February 25, 2019 by cdowis
clarkgoble Posted February 25, 2019 Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: Fear and paranoia was what it was like. Most of what I have read about Russia during the time suggests they were more concerned about the threat from China. Nuclear war is still a very real possibility. We still have our triad of nuclear deterrence and they still have most of theirs, enough to hurt us in any case. Umm. I think you need to read further. Yes they were upset at Mao but that wasn't their main concern - particularly by the late 70's and 80's. And MAD only gets you so far as the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrates. Lots of chance for mistakes too. (Read about what happened when they turned on the early warning attack system and didn't realize so many asteroids were hitting the earth or the 1979 NORAD false alarm that nearly led to launching missiles or the Soviet equivalent in 1983) While I know fears of nuclear war get dismissed these days as paranoia, really contextually it wasn't paranoid fears but pretty legitimate fears. It's honestly miraculous we came through the era from the 50's through 80's as well as we did. Edited February 25, 2019 by clarkgoble 2
Gray Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Number of proxy wars between Russia and US today? Risk of nuclear war? Threat to invasion of Europe (ignore for the moment former soviet states like Ukraine) I think people forget what it was like during the cold war. Today we get, a few thousand in spending on bad memes on Facebook and funding of a few fringe groups in the US and EU. Contrast this with even the funding of fringe groups in the cold war. (Note that some of the funding, such as on civil rights groups, was counterproductive to the Soviets yet was clearly being done to stoke race wars) Had Trump not won we'd not even be having these discussions. Trump was a horrible candidate but he was put where he is far more by media complicity - particularly int he primaries. Throw in the controversy over HRC's server, Weiner having the email on his laptop during his investigation, NY Time fixation on such issues (since they thought HRC would easily win), and Comey's last minute announcement of investigation over Weiner and potentially missing HRC emails, and anything Russia did was lost in the margins. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned about Trump. But the idea Russia swung the election is silly. Their actions were a blip compared to what they did in the cold war. That's not an accurate assessment of what Russia did, both directly and through their proxies. If only a tiny fraction of the people exposed to Russian propaganda were swayed in their votes (or non votes), that would have been more than enough to change the election results. They were also likely responsible for the Brexit results via propaganda efforts from their proxies. The good news is that Russia is no longer a credible military threat, because their mob leadership has drained the country of its resources and innovation. But they continue to destabilize governments all over the world, including ours. They also disrupt vital infrastructure (hacking into power grids, hospitals, etc), foment violence (including mass shootings in the US), etc. Edited February 26, 2019 by Gray
bsjkki Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, Gray said: That's not an accurate assessment of what Russia did, both directly and through their proxies. If only a tiny fraction of the people exposed to Russian propaganda were swayed in their votes (or non votes), that would have been more than enough to change the election results. They were also responsible for the Brexit results. The good news is that Russia is no longer a credible military threat, because their mob leadership has drained the country of its resources and innovation. But they continue to destabilize governments all over the world. They also disrupt vital infrastructure (hacking into power grids, hospitals, etc), foment violence (including mass shootings in the US), etc. I’m not sure this thread about “debate” possibly changing people’s minds would benefit from a debate about the Russian influence in the 2016 election. It would cause an extreme thread derail. 3
MustardSeed Posted February 26, 2019 Author Posted February 26, 2019 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I’m not sure this thread about “debate” possibly changing people’s minds would benefit from a debate about the Russian influence in the 2016 election. It would cause an extreme thread derail. It’s absolutely a derail in perfect meta but im noticing that derails are par for this entire site. Oh look...Squirrel
bsjkki Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 44 minutes ago, Gray said: That's not an accurate assessment of what Russia did, both directly and through their proxies. If only a tiny fraction of the people exposed to Russian propaganda were swayed in their votes (or non votes), that would have been more than enough to change the election results. They were also likely responsible for the Brexit results via propaganda efforts from their proxies. The good news is that Russia is no longer a credible military threat, because their mob leadership has drained the country of its resources and innovation. But they continue to destabilize governments all over the world, including ours. They also disrupt vital infrastructure (hacking into power grids, hospitals, etc), foment violence (including mass shootings in the US), etc. Gray, if I debated you about this topic, is there any hope I could ever change your mind?
Gray Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 (edited) 42 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Gray, if I debated you about this topic, is there any hope I could ever change your mind? Probably not, as my views are based on US intelligence findings about the Russian attack on our elections. In any case, the thread would be locked in about 5 minutes. Edited February 26, 2019 by Gray
Calm Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 What about a debate on BYU Police powers? Anyone feel they should be able to refuse to turn over requested info unlike state police departments? 1
bsjkki Posted February 26, 2019 Posted February 26, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Calm said: What about a debate on BYU Police powers? Anyone feel they should be able to refuse to turn over requested info unlike state police departments? Well, if they’re only a security force now, I think their powers would be greatly diminished. I reread your comment and I do wonder if anyone wants to debate that position? Edited February 26, 2019 by bsjkki
MustardSeed Posted February 26, 2019 Author Posted February 26, 2019 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: Well, if they’re only a security force now, I think their powers would be greatly diminished. I reread your comment and I do wonder if anyone wants to debate that position? Hm. I imagine it’s not debatable but then there are people who are threatened by the idea that The Great BYU could possibly be in the wrong in anything. BYU grad here. all my kids are there too.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 27, 2019 Posted February 27, 2019 On 2/25/2019 at 11:04 AM, Gray said: Nope, way before then. But perhaps you don't mind POTUS taking orders from the Kremlin? That certainly wasn't the case during the cold war. The dismantling of NATO is certainly high on Putin's wish list, and perhaps not coincidentally high on POTUS' list as well. If you are certain POTUS is “taking orders from the Kremlin,” perhaps it behooves you, before the son sets today, to contact the Mueller investigation team and let them in on what you’ve got, because after more than two years of trying, they apparently have been unable to uncover even a shred of evidence of such a thing. 2
Gray Posted February 28, 2019 Posted February 28, 2019 On 2/26/2019 at 9:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said: If you are certain POTUS is “taking orders from the Kremlin,” perhaps it behooves you, before the son sets today, to contact the Mueller investigation team and let them in on what you’ve got, because after more than two years of trying, they apparently have been unable to uncover even a shred of evidence of such a thing. Mueller has been sharing Five Eyes intercepts, sealed grand jury testimony, sealed indictments, seized documents, and other evidence with you, has he?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 1, 2019 Posted March 1, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Gray said: Mueller has been sharing Five Eyes intercepts, sealed grand jury testimony, sealed indictments, seized documents, and other evidence with you, has he? Has he been sharing them with you? Edited March 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts