Trump Launches Tomahawk Missiles at Syria in Response to Alleged Chemical Attack

This argument is based entirely on the notion that the news media is 'too biased'. It's not based on anything concrete, you simply feel that the news media is too biased and can be equated to BS propaganda because of it. They are not actually the same thing, just as Trump and Hitler are not actually the same thing. Even still, you see equating Trump and Hitler as propaganda, while you claim that equating the MSN with a propaganda machine is not. That is not based on anything concrete, it's all feeling (a.k.a. opinion), and thus we come back to what I said earlier. Your "truth" is nothing but opinion and you've been trying to pretend it's something greater.



How does the 'most plausible' explanation differ from the simplest one when factoring in all the known facts? Is it 'more plausible' to think that there is a world order government moving towards some end than to assume that each government acts in their own best interest? Is it 'more plausible' to make leaps in logic based on things that may not be fact as opposed to looking at just the facts as we know them? Is it 'more plausible' to assume things to be true in order to have a theory make sense, rather than look at the data?

By all means, investigate more, speculate, and wait for new information, but when we reject what was already established in favor of something else WITHOUT EVIDENCE, then we get into problems.



I engage in considering hypothetical scenarios all the time here, but that doesn't mean anything. That doesn't automatically mean I don't have a narrow paradigm. This boils back down to the point I made earlier. People are 'too biased' for your liking. They are 'too enslaved' and have 'too narrow paradigms' for your liking. You have a determination of what constitutes 'too biased' and fine, whatever. You're entitled to your own opinion. Unfortunately that's not what you billed it as. You called it not opinion, but "truth" and that's where we have a problem. Truth has a markedly different definition from opinion.

Yes and what you're willing to concede in order to get what you want is different from someone else's. However, their handling of it is botched, idiotic, and short sighted while your plan isn't.



No, I specifically argued that whether or not I personally considered an act morally good or bad was entirely beside the point of whether or not those acts are, by their very nature, morally good or bad. I argued that it was MY OPINION that saving a child was preferable, but I acknowledge wholeheartedly that that was MY OPINION and in no way necessarily reflective of reality.



So it is not true but gloriously correct. Okay whatever floats your boat.



If we're talking about degrees of culpability than my statement stands. Unless you wish to argue that the more damaging something is, the more culpable an entity becomes? So if I go and kill 20 people I am inherently more culpable for murder than if I had killed only 1? Or that if I watch someone kill 20 people then I'm responsible for those 20 deaths?

That is essentially the only intelligent thing that I've seen you post in this entire thread.

And yet, in this thread, you have repeatedly turned your back on this statement and proclaimed things that are the exact opposite.

Oh, so this is where this has been heading. I figured that at some point you would say something. Yes, it is true that Obama and Hillary are retards and Merkel is a moron. It is true that Bush was an idiot. You can see that in the way they deny reality.

Although please, feel free to tell us all how the world is a better place now - it is safer and freer and everyone is living happy lives in a global utopia thanks to the US royally screwing the Middle East through their idiocy.



So in other words you are denying that morality exists.

That's ok, you are allowed to say it is the same to molest and kill a child as it is to save one if it is a necessary logical entailment of your belief. It is better to just own it (or change your belief). If people say, "yes it is true that r4ping and killing children is the same as saving children but I won't say that because it is too obviously false to be accepted," I will acknowledge it.




No. Culpability is not purely consequentialist.



Well obviously killing 20 people means greater culpability in a general sense, but in the sense you imply here, no.



No.

However, if I am placed in a situation where I only have two bad options, my culpability is lessened when taking one of those bad options. If my choices are buy clothes made by virtual slaves or go naked and I buy clothes, I am less culpable than those who allow the practice to continue (as an extreme example).

Fine. You can believe that.

I think I have provided people here with overwhelming evidence, no, irrefutable evidence, than one popular meme of today is a laughable absurdity that has no credibility and can be refuted by anyone in less than ten minutes. All we need to do is read primary texts and the meme dies.

When 'truth' is so utterly repudiated by fact (the facts in this case being the primary texts), that 'truth' is nothing more than propaganda - and it matters not one whit that almost everyone accepts the meme as true.

The earth is either flat, round, square, non existent or some other thing. What you and I think it is is irrelevant.



I am not a global conspiracy theorist by any means. I have no doubt there are those who have a global agenda. Some of them I even suspect have some concept of universal good in their idea of globalism. Some are ideological/religious/political retards, and some just want power.

The fact is that there have been people trying to amass as much power as possible almost from the day there have been people. Religious people, politicians, business people - to think some of them want global power is not unreasonable. To think they are all working toward that common goal in a united conspiratorial front probably is. Groups may use each other as useful idiots (think the left and Islamists here), but this does not equate to a globalist conspiracy in the sense you seem to mean.



Not sure how this related to anything I have said. I assume it is a more general comment than one aimed at me, as I am waiting for more evidence before drawing a conclusion.



Possibly not, but it does at least allow you the chance to broaden your paradigm somewhat. That seems to be the best we can hope for, and I doubt that any of us ever get all that good at it.



Yes for the most part this is true. And that goes for friend and foe alike, for the record. I have no allegiance to any media outlets as I distrust them all.

I keep saying to people they should do their own research as much as possible. Sure, we have to rely on others for a lot of our understanding, but we should know things for ourselves first hand as often as we can.



In some things, yes. When fact denies 'truth' I see no reason to accept the 'truth' no matter who is saying it.



Yes, and in relation to the USA selling drugs to poor black people to fund a terror organisation to fight a democratically elected government I have amended my earlier statement by adding that the drug dealing was done by proxy.

No.

You have not.

Not even close.

In fact, you have provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Further you have essentially admitted as much by essentially stating that since your argument was consistent with your opinion you were being both truthful and factual... which is more than just a little bit absurd, and has nothing whatever to do with either logical thinking nor fact based discussion.

Sorry. I was speaking here of evidence I have supplied that refutes the idea that "Islam is a religion of peace," or that "Islam means peace." The USA selling drugs to poor black people is obviously my opinion. "Selling drugs to American people by proxy," is probably more accurate, I just see no reason to refute the idea that doing X by proxy is doing X. I have said repeatedly that my initial comment was hardly an all inconclusive statement of absolute truth. However, none of us load our discussion with references to "in my opinion," as this is not necessary.

Keep pointlessly quibbling or move on.

Which is not at all my point. I'm not arguing that Bush's, Obama's, or Hillary's approach to the Middle East is the correct one. I'm arguing against the notion that your plan is inherently superior to theirs. You maintain that arming a side in a conflict in the Middle East has a high potential to backfire horribly, yet what is the thing you propose we do? Back Assad to fight ISIS. But somehow this WON'T turn out as horribly as before. How is that not incredibly hypocritical?



No, I'm not. I'm saying that whether objective morality exists or not, we cannot tell the difference between the false ones and the true ones. You said yourself that fact does not care about what we think about it, but you are arguing that what I feel about raping and murdering children is somehow relevant to whether or not it is objectively moral.



Then what is this idea that the US turning a blind eye to drug dealers is tantamount to selling the stuff themselves based on? The only way I could figure that it applies to the government and not the individual is that the gulf in power played a role, but that's clearly a consequentialist standpoint.



Then what is culpability in the sense that you imply here? Clearly we're operating on different definitions.



People can convince themselves that there are only bad options many times, whether it's actually true or not. Invoking justification does not lessen blame, only explain action. If it didn't, then the US would be culpable of very little. There is always a justification for questionable actions.

So, if we accept this argument, the US was 'placed in a situation where they only had two bad options and chose what they believed was the lesser of two evils', but somehow they are still more culpable then you by virtue of their power.

If we're talking about the Contra thing, then no, you haven't provided irrefutable evidence of anything regarding a government backed drug ring.



Which brings me back to 'How is it more plausible to assume something's off than to just look at the facts for what they are?'



You do realize that sounds suspiciously like a participation trophy, right? 'Oh he tried so I guess he deserves SOME credit.' Correct me if I'm wrong but, weren't you one of the people who had a problem with participation trophies?



Accusing someone of being 'too biased' is incredibly dependent on personal preference. Wrapping it up in talk about 'truth' simply hides that.



Fact simply states that X happened. It doesn't tell you how to feel about it, simply that it did. Claiming something as evil or stupid is not fact precisely because it tells you how to feel about it.



Which is not true. You have provided no evidence, specifically, that the government was using those dealers as proxies. It may be your opinion that that's what happened but it is not established truth. Hence why I keep reiterating that truth has a different definition from opinion.

Your evidence does not refute "Islam is a religion of peace" nor that "Islam means peace" (It does)

"Doing x by proxy" is not correct either. Turning a blind eye is the better descriptor. But you go with your opinions. We expect no more.

If what you think is irrelevant please by all means don't display further irrelevance.

Except that that's exactly what you do when the issue of the individual vs. the government comes up.



If you would like people to stop assuming you're talking about facts instead of opinions, then perhaps you should stop using words like fact and truth when talking about them.

A-f***ing-men.

Ain't that the truth!

No, this is not in relation to the indisputable fact that US government agencies admitted to (or got caught out) aiding and funding drug dealers linked to the Contras (see below).



In the case of Assad and chemical weapon use, you mean? What are the facts? It is alleged that chemical weapons were used, and I think it is safe to assume that that is probably true. Beyond that there are no facts pointing either way that I am aware of.





We have a choice to make. We learn and increase our understanding or we don't. Call it a participation trophy, becoming an adult, pulling your had from your ass, growing up or a fact of life. A rose by any other name...



Not at all. There are people I agree with on some things (from Noam Chomsky and Karl Marx to Winston Churchill, Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan) however I do not claim they are therefore unbiased or always right. I merely claim they are right on those things they are right about.

I still refuse to buy into the childish but common idea that I am either unquestioningly a member of a lynch mob or cheer squad. I have a brain. I can and do think and learn for myself. I do not support anyone unquestioningly as that is dangerous and stupid at best.



A fact says nothing, it just is what it is. We say things about facts that are more or less true.



Would you be so kind as to answer these two questions for me please;

1. Did US government agencies fund and protect drug dealers linked to the Contras? (And I will help you out).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking

"the Contra drug links included[,]" amongst other connections, " .... Payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."



According to a House Subcommittee investigation witness statement:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/docs/doc06.pdf

"The logic of having drug money pay for the pressing needs of the Contras appealed to a number of people who became involved in the covert war. Indeed, senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contra's funding problems [...]

[...] Contra operations on the Southern Front were in fact funded by drug operations. He testified that weapons for the Contras came from Panama on small planes carrying mixed loads which included drugs. The pilot unloaded the weapons, refueled, and headed north toward the U.S. with drugs. "

There was also evidence given at the Kerry hearings about drug dealers being given asylum in the USA in ways that were "worrying." (No link for that, sadly). And the CIA directly sought to protect a known drug dealer who was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the Honduran President (I linked that on 9).


2. Were the Contras a group that the US supported in a proxy war against the Soviets in the Cold War era to fight against the pro-Soviet Sandanista government of Nicaragua?


Since you like hypothetical scenarios, respond to this one.

If I am a cop and I give money to and protect a drug dealer in order to accrue benefit to myself from his drug dealing, am I involved in drug dealing in any way?