Trump just fired James Comey

[Keith&Co.]

This isn't just "party before country," then. It is Trump before all else.

Which certainly seems to be in character for him.
You know he didn't run for President to help anyone but The Donald.

 

[Rayschism]

No different than anybody else.

I'm sorry, but I find your constant false equivalency and teenage angst at any institution of governance annoying. All political parties face issues involving partisanship and other challenges as well, but to be blunt, if Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be in this dark shadowy place. "Everyone does it" neither requires depth of analysis nor nuance, and while it may be popular within certain crowds, it's attitudes like that that helped toss this election to Trump.

Your cognitive bias is showing.

And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'm sorry, but I find your constant false equivalency and teenage angst at any institution of governance annoying. All political parties face issues involving partisanship and other challenges as well, but to be blunt, if Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be in this dark shadowy place. "Everyone does it" neither requires depth of analysis nor nuance, and while it may be popular within certain crowds, it's attitudes like that that helped toss this election to Trump.

Your cognitive bias is showing.

And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.

Ha! Yeah, I'm the singer of Clinton's praises...yeah. Cognitive bias isn't words you trout out when you don't agree with someone. Doing that would be a sign of cognitive bias. I mentioned Clinton because she was the only opposition that had a shot at winning vs. Trump. If any other name would have been in that position I would have used it. The name as a matter of fact is actually immaterial to this discussion at the moment. If Jill Stein had been that person I would have said so.

I have no doubt you unilaterally disregard my remarks, but you don't show any understanding of the words you use. This is problematic, because even if you're arguing a correct point in the future, someone that has actual knowledge of logical fallacies and biases will expose your ignorance.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Your cognitive bias is showing.

And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.

Ha! Yeah, I'm the singer of Clinton's praises...yeah. Cognitive bias isn't words you trout out when you don't agree with someone. Doing that would be a sign of cognitive bias. I mentioned Clinton because she was the only opposition that had a shot at winning vs. Trump. If any other name would have been in that position I would have used it. The name as a matter of fact is actually immaterial to this discussion at the moment. If Jill Stein had been that person I would have said so.

I have no doubt you unilaterally disregard my remarks, but you don't show any understanding of the words you use. This is problematic, because even if you're arguing a correct point in the future, someone that has actual knowledge of logical fallacies and biases will expose your ignorance.

Trump voters are extremely defensive these days!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm sorry, but I find your constant false equivalency and teenage angst at any institution of governance annoying. All political parties face issues involving partisanship and other challenges as well, but to be blunt, if Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be in this dark shadowy place. "Everyone does it" neither requires depth of analysis nor nuance, and while it may be popular within certain crowds, it's attitudes like that that helped toss this election to Trump.

Your cognitive bias is showing.

And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.

What cognitive bias? What confirmation bias? What hyperbole?

 

[Rayschism]

Your cognitive bias is showing.

And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.

Ha! Yeah, I'm the singer of Clinton's praises...yeah. Cognitive bias isn't words you trout out when you don't agree with someone. Doing that would be a sign of cognitive bias. I mentioned Clinton because she was the only opposition that had a shot at winning vs. Trump. If any other name would have been in that position I would have used it. The name as a matter of fact is actually immaterial to this discussion at the moment. If Jill Stein had been that person I would have said so.

I have no doubt you unilaterally disregard my remarks, but you don't show any understanding of the words you use. This is problematic, because even if you're arguing a correct point in the future, someone that has actual knowledge of logical fallacies and biases will expose your ignorance.

Which you do knot.

 

[RavenSky]

This might sound silly, but what about an arrest? If Trump has actually broken laws instead of just behaving in a way unfit for the office, couldn't he just be put on trial and convicted by a jury of people who aren't House Republicans?

Technically possible/legal, but I can not imagine any agency doing it... especially at the rate he has been installing his own toadies

 

[Rayschism]

Your cognitive bias is showing.

And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.

What cognitive bias? What confirmation bias? What hyperbole?

The whole thing.

First claim: calling it a false equivalence.

That is an assumption because he didn't ask me to clarify what I mean, and couldn't consider that I might have a point.

Confirmation bias:

"if Clinton had won the election we wouldn't be in this dark shadowy place."

More confirmation bias:

"Everyone does it" neither requires depth of analysis nor nuance, and while it may be popular within certain crowds, it's attitudes like that that helped toss this election to Trump."

Because there are many more possibilities that he will not consider in favor of Clinton.

I meant what I said. It is not a false equivalency since part of the America process is jockeying for position, to get majority control, to get their policies passed with little challenge or disruption in some way.

If something is true it is not a logical fallacy, at least as far as I know.

And I really, truly can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Haven't been able to for years. They may use different language and words, but when you get past that and take a look at their behavior, much which is childish, it really is pretty much all the same.

For example of the kind of thing I mean, We must have health care! Let's trash the other guys' programs and policies and institute one of our own.

Dear god man, when will it end?

And when will we get back to the constitution?

 

[Deepak]

If something is true it is not a logical fallacy, at least as far as I know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ha! Yeah, I'm the singer of Clinton's praises...yeah. Cognitive bias isn't words you trout out when you don't agree with someone. Doing that would be a sign of cognitive bias. I mentioned Clinton because she was the only opposition that had a shot at winning vs. Trump. If any other name would have been in that position I would have used it. The name as a matter of fact is actually immaterial to this discussion at the moment. If Jill Stein had been that person I would have said so.

I have no doubt you unilaterally disregard my remarks, but you don't show any understanding of the words you use. This is problematic, because even if you're arguing a correct point in the future, someone that has actual knowledge of logical fallacies and biases will expose your ignorance.

Which you do knot.

Gosh you think you are so much more clever than you are. But please, continue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If something is true it is not a logical fallacy, at least as far as I know.

I've been trying to remember that piece of math for so long, several years! Finally I can stop.

 

[untermensche]

If something is true it is not a logical fallacy, at least as far as I know.

Not a logical fallacy.

Just an operation that makes no sense but happens to work in one case.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not a logical fallacy.

Just an operation that makes no sense but happens to work in one case.

But the reason it makes no sense is because of the logic error being performed. That's the point.

 

[Rayschism]

Yet some numbers are completely irrational.

The logic of irrational numeracy?

 

[untermensche]

Not a logical fallacy.

Just an operation that makes no sense but happens to work in one case.

But the reason it makes no sense is because of the logic error being performed. That's the point.

Nothing logical about it.

It is a defined operation: division.

Mathematics is not logic.

It is a set of definitions and their necessary, not logical, results.

1 + 1 = 2 by definition, not logic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yet some numbers are completely irrational.

The logic of irrational numeracy?

But 'irrational numbers' has an actual meaning. It's a useful term.
It's not the same as a logical fallacy. Not even on the same page.

 

[Will Wiley]

Personally I'm not too upset about Comey going, though the next guy will likely be worse.

Revealed: FBI terrorism taskforce investigating Standing Rock activists

The FBI is investigating political activists campaigning against the Dakota Access pipeline, diverting agents charged with preventing terrorist attacks to instead focus their attention on indigenous activists and environmentalists.

The Guardian has established that multiple officers within the FBI’s joint terrorism taskforce have attempted to contact at least three people tied to the Standing Rock “water protector” movement in North Dakota.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Personally I'm not too upset about Comey going, though the next guy will likely be worse.

Revealed: FBI terrorism taskforce investigating Standing Rock activists

The FBI is investigating political activists campaigning against the Dakota Access pipeline, diverting agents charged with preventing terrorist attacks to instead focus their attention on indigenous activists and environmentalists.

The Guardian has established that multiple officers within the FBI’s joint terrorism taskforce have attempted to contact at least three people tied to the Standing Rock “water protector” movement in North Dakota.

I never would have guessed that wouldn't be happy that Comey was fired! That's pretty funny. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this investigation is far far from over.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Originally posted by RaySchism:

First claim: calling it a false equivalence.

That is an assumption because he didn't ask me to clarify what I mean, and couldn't consider that I might have a point.

It's not an assumption to draw a correct conclusion from what you yourself stated. I did not ask for clarification because I saw no reason to think that I misunderstood your meaning. In fact, you did clarify, in the same post #168 - in which you elucidated:

And I really, truly can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Haven't been able to for years. They may use different language and words, but when you get past that and take a look at their behavior, much which is childish, it really is pretty much all the same.

This is EXACTLY what I thought you meant, and why I expressed my opinion that such an attitude merely strengthens the opposition in a two party system. Even had I made an assumption and misunderstood what you said, then that would be a misunderstanding not confirmation bias. In fact, the criteria by which you have judged me to be displaying confirmation bias regarding Hillary Clinton was as follows (again stated by yourself)

And your confirmation bias of Clinton is the savior as well, so I unilaterally disregard your hyperbole.

You are yourself making an assumption that I somehow regard Hillary Clinton as some sort of savior. I do not, and I stated as much. I regard Hillary Clinton as a deeply flawed candidate, and I had many issues with her becoming president, just as I had issues with her when she was in Congress and Secretary of State. I did not vote for her in the Democratic primary race.

As to the rest of post #168, with the exception of what I already quoted, your writing style is unorthodox, and in regards to most of what you go on to say I truly don't know what you're trying to convey. I prefer not to make assumptions, so I won't comment on it. Besides, if the past is any indication, you'll merely lose your temper and lash out, as you have a tendency to do when people ask you for clarification. So feel free to move on.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yeah, confirmation bias is a totally different thing that what he is saying. It's almost like he doesn't really internalize it when he makes a mistake, and only pays attention to evidence that supports his beliefs. I wonder if there's a name for that.