4 ms·

in most cases I doubt the current American commander in chief has thought long and hard about his moral positions. That being said, the authoritarian regimes o

by gman83 8y ago

in most cases I doubt the current American commander in chief has thought long and hard about his moral positions. That being said, the authoritarian regimes of the world will undoubtedly not hesitate to use AI in their military, so some form of deterrence will presumably be required.

Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
And yet he was the one calling to not strike Syria while the democrats and their propagandists and commisars called him a traitor for not wanting to bomb them. You have a distorted view of reality blinded by your irrational hatred of orangeman bad.
- Skrillex 8y ago
  It seems to me that it is your view of reality that might be distorted if you can and have inferred that the parent has an irrational hatred of the current president of the United States from that particular sentence.
  - Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
    I'm perfectly willing to entertain that notion. Explain to me how the parent could come to that conclusion by other means? Consider that this president has consistently used teddy roosevelt tactics to deescelate tensions in areas the cultural elites have deemed impossible (e.g., north Korea, China, Russia, EU, Canada).
    - Skrillex 8y ago
      I do not want this to sound ironic, but the explanation that seems most intuitive to me is that the parent has been informed of some number of the president's actions (likely through the media and/or aquaintances) and came to the conclusion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions. While the parent may indeed have an irrational hatred of the president (I do not immediately see any evidence for it, but you may not prove a negative), it is not a hard requirement in order to maintain the opinion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions. Does that seem plausible? On an unrelated note, I do not hate the president, but also believe that either he does not think long and hard about his moral positions, or simply does not actually share them with the public. In my case, I believe this because he appears to rapidly shift his opinions, attitudes, and words in a way that makes it difficult to infer what he believes, or even what he wants people to believe that he believes.
      - Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
        Then you have to explain why he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did. Can you explain that? That's the part that makes your statment seem like neither of you have actually thought about this.
        Skrillex 8y ago
        I do not understand what "the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars" have to do with whether or not the president has thought long and hard about his moral positions. I explained why I think that he does not, but even if that reason were not provided, it does not follow that someone with the position that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions would need to have an irrational hatred of him. To briefly reduce your position to a strawman: >Person X believes that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions -> Person X has an irrational hatred of the president My issue is with that deduction. There is a logical jump somewhere in here that I am not able to follow. You reference multiple third parties and contrast them to the president as if to suggest that whatever differences that they may have means that it is clear that this hypothetical Person X has an irrational hatred of the president, or that a particular decision that the president has made proves this, but these are not obvious conclusions to me. As for why "he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did", I actually do not have to explain that. The reason that I have given is in no way refuted by or related to this claim. Instead, could you explain why the opinion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions is sufficient evidence that the holder of that opinion irrationally hates the president?
        Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
        Because it has no basis in reality, as evidenced by the fact that, in the examples provided, he's demonstrated more morality than anyone else in politics. I'm not really sure why this is confusing. If you think he doesn't think things through, you have to explain the counter examples. Otherwise you're just ignoring reality and cherry picking facts.

by gman83 8y ago

Lkjhmnbv 8y ago

And yet he was the one calling to not strike Syria while the democrats and their propagandists and commisars called him a traitor for not wanting to bomb them. You have a distorted view of reality blinded by your irrational hatred of orangeman bad.

Skrillex 8y ago
It seems to me that it is your view of reality that might be distorted if you can and have inferred that the parent has an irrational hatred of the current president of the United States from that particular sentence.
- Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
  I'm perfectly willing to entertain that notion. Explain to me how the parent could come to that conclusion by other means? Consider that this president has consistently used teddy roosevelt tactics to deescelate tensions in areas the cultural elites have deemed impossible (e.g., north Korea, China, Russia, EU, Canada).
  - Skrillex 8y ago
    I do not want this to sound ironic, but the explanation that seems most intuitive to me is that the parent has been informed of some number of the president's actions (likely through the media and/or aquaintances) and came to the conclusion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions. While the parent may indeed have an irrational hatred of the president (I do not immediately see any evidence for it, but you may not prove a negative), it is not a hard requirement in order to maintain the opinion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions. Does that seem plausible? On an unrelated note, I do not hate the president, but also believe that either he does not think long and hard about his moral positions, or simply does not actually share them with the public. In my case, I believe this because he appears to rapidly shift his opinions, attitudes, and words in a way that makes it difficult to infer what he believes, or even what he wants people to believe that he believes.
    - Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
      Then you have to explain why he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did. Can you explain that? That's the part that makes your statment seem like neither of you have actually thought about this.
      - Skrillex 8y ago
        I do not understand what "the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars" have to do with whether or not the president has thought long and hard about his moral positions. I explained why I think that he does not, but even if that reason were not provided, it does not follow that someone with the position that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions would need to have an irrational hatred of him. To briefly reduce your position to a strawman: >Person X believes that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions -> Person X has an irrational hatred of the president My issue is with that deduction. There is a logical jump somewhere in here that I am not able to follow. You reference multiple third parties and contrast them to the president as if to suggest that whatever differences that they may have means that it is clear that this hypothetical Person X has an irrational hatred of the president, or that a particular decision that the president has made proves this, but these are not obvious conclusions to me. As for why "he didn't want to bomb random Muslims but the democratic party, their propaganda outlets, and their commisars did", I actually do not have to explain that. The reason that I have given is in no way refuted by or related to this claim. Instead, could you explain why the opinion that the president does not think long and hard about his moral positions is sufficient evidence that the holder of that opinion irrationally hates the president?
        Lkjhmnbv 8y ago
        Because it has no basis in reality, as evidenced by the fact that, in the examples provided, he's demonstrated more morality than anyone else in politics. I'm not really sure why this is confusing. If you think he doesn't think things through, you have to explain the counter examples. Otherwise you're just ignoring reality and cherry picking facts.