White House bans CNN reporter from press conference

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2018, 01:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There sure is.

Do you disagree with the assertion that it is deeds not thoughts that makes one a bad person or were you just quizzing my knowledge of the bible?

I disagree with your assertion. Not just because of the Bible thing, but other reasons. Morality is a subjective thing, which means that what qualifies someone as "bad" is as well. If someone's morality was based around the Bible and considered a sinner to be bad, then thoughts along would qualify someone as such. But there are other times when thoughts make the difference, as well.

Say two people shoot a dog. Same action being taken by both people. One person is doing so out of malice, the other is doing so out of compassion because of a disease. The thought, the intention of the action alters what many people would perceive as the goodness or badness of the person. This means that it's not only action that determines badness.

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 01:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree with your assertion. Not just because of the Bible thing, but other reasons. Morality is a subjective thing, which means that what qualifies someone as "bad" is as well. If someone's morality was based around the Bible and considered a sinner to be bad, then thoughts along would qualify someone as such. But there are other times when thoughts make the difference, as well.

Say two people shoot a dog. Same action being taken by both people. One person is doing so out of malice, the other is doing so out of compassion because of a disease. The thought, the intention of the action alters what many people would perceive as the goodness or badness of the person. This means that it's not only action that determines badness.

You do realize the example you used trying to dispute the notion had both people committing an action, don't you?  So I think yousupported the notion while failing at disrupting it.

Let's try this:

If person A shoots a stray dog for walking onto his lawn because it is lost and person B merely thinks about it. Which one does society deem to be worse? 

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2018, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize the example you used trying to dispute the notion had both people committing an action, don't you?  So I think yousupported the notion while failing at disrupting it.

No, I did not support the notion. Your argument is that one's deeds make one a bad person. My argument was that two people could act similarly, but with different thoughts, and that can make the difference. It shows that good or bad is not rooted in action alone.

(10-09-2018, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this:

If person A shoots a stray dog for walking onto his lawn because it is lost and person B merely thinks about it. Which one does society deem to be worse? 

Most people in society would deem person A to be worse.

Question as a follow-up: if person B's thoughts were known to society, would society consider them a bad person for thinking in that way?

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. No, I did not support the notion. Your argument is that one's deeds make one a bad person. My argument was that two people could act similarly, but with different thoughts, and that can make the difference. It shows that good or bad is not rooted in action alone.


2. Most people in society would deem person A to be worse.

3. Question as a follow-up: if person B's thoughts were known to society, would society consider them a bad person for thinking in that way?

1. If you're going to try to dispute what I assert at least get straight what asserted. Don't do one of those Red Birdy things.

2. So there you have it.

3. Perhaps, but not as bad as the person that actually shot the dog. Get it yet? 

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2018, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. If you're going to try to dispute what I assert at least get straight what asserted. Don't do one of those Red Birdy things.

I did get straight what you asserted.

Show me the discrepancy.

(10-09-2018, 01:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you disagree with the assertion that it is deeds not thoughts that makes one a bad person or were you just quizzing my knowledge of the bible?

(10-09-2018, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, I did not support the notion. Your argument is that one's deeds make one a bad person. My argument was that two people could act similarly, but with different thoughts, and that can make the difference. It shows that good or bad is not rooted in action alone.

Other than not including the implicit "rather than thoughts" in my sentence, it is exactly what you said.

(10-09-2018, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. So there you have it.

Have what?

(10-09-2018, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Perhaps, but not as bad as the person that actually shot the dog. Get it yet? 

Are you trying to make a different argument with me than the one I was actually disputing? I mean, this all started with me contesting your statement that "Actions, not thoughts, are what makes one a bad person." There was no scaling done, it was what makes a person a bad person. Degrees of badness is irrelevant in that conversation.

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 02:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I did get straight what you asserted.

Show me the discrepancy.



Other than not including the implicit "rather than thoughts" in my sentence, it is exactly what you said.


Have what?


Are you trying to make a different argument with me than the one I was actually disputing? I mean, this all started with me contesting your statement that "Actions, not thoughts, are what makes one a bad person." There was no scaling done, it was what makes a person a bad person. Degrees of badness is irrelevant in that conversation.

So you asserted I said "It's a person's deeds that make them a bad person", when I said "It's deeds, not thoughts; that makes a bad person". Those are not the same ideas. Then you suggest these are the same thing because of the implicit meaning behind what you said.

And yes I am disputing your assertion that thoughts can make someone equally as bad as actions. Who was the last person arrested for merely something they thought, without acting on that thought? Man has partial control over his thoughts, he has total control over his actions. It is telling that you chose to dispute this assertion rather than Dino's ridiculous assertion that this reporter is better qualified to sit on the SC than someone with Kav's record. 

As to continuing this ridiculous back and forth. I yield.

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2018, 02:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you asserted I said "It's a person's deeds that make them a bad person", when I said "It's deeds, not thoughts; that makes a bad person". Those are not the same ideas. Then you suggest these are the same thing because of the implicit meaning behind what you said.

They are the same thing.

(10-09-2018, 02:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And yes I am disputing your assertion that thoughts can make someone equally as bad as actions. Who was the last person arrested for merely something they thought, without acting on that thought? Man has partial control over his thoughts, he has total control over his actions. It is telling that you chose to dispute this assertion rather than Dino's ridiculous assertion that this reporter is better qualified to sit on the SC than someone with Kav's record. 

Now who is misrepresenting assertions? I never asserted anything was ranked within badness, I never discussed any spectrumof badness. So you really aren't disputing anything I have said.

(10-09-2018, 02:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to continuing this ridiculous back and forth. I yield.

Glad you understand how ridiculous your argument is.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2018, 02:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you asserted I said "It's a person's deeds that make them a bad person", when I said "It's deeds, not thoughts; that makes a bad person". Those are not the same ideas. 

They are exactly the same.

This is getting silly.

[BmorePat87]

(10-09-2018, 02:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you asserted I said "It's a person's deeds that make them a bad person", when I said "It's deeds, not thoughts; that makes a bad person". Those are not the same ideas. Then you suggest these are the same thing because of the implicit meaning behind what you said.

And yes I am disputing your assertion that thoughts can make someone equally as bad as actions. Who was the last person arrested for merely something they thought, without acting on that thought? Man has partial control over his thoughts, he has total control over his actions. It is telling that you chose to dispute this assertion rather than Dino's ridiculous assertion that this reporter is better qualified to sit on the SC than someone with Kav's record. 

As to continuing this ridiculous back and forth. I yield.

This is hilarious. You're arguing that he is misrepresenting your position because he said "actions make them a bad person" rather than "actions not thought", when it means the same thing. Removing "not thoughts" doesn't change your argument that actions are what make impact one's character, which he correctly maintains as your argument. 


and then you proceed to completely misrepresent his argument that thought does play a role by arguing that he is saying that "thoughts can make someone equally as bad as actions" when he never even came close to saying that. Matt gives an example of putting down sick Old Yeller versus killing a dog out of malice, and that's what you took from it?

This is beyond pathetic.

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 02:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are exactly the same.

This is getting silly.

(10-09-2018, 03:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is hilarious. You're arguing that he is misrepresenting your position because he said "actions make them a bad person" rather than "actions not thought", when it means the same thing. Removing "not thoughts" doesn't change your argument that actions are what make impact one's character, which he correctly maintains as your argument. 


and then you proceed to completely misrepresent his argument that thought does play a role by arguing that he is saying that "thoughts can make someone equally as bad as actions" when he never even came close to saying that. Matt gives an example of putting down sick Old Yeller versus killing a dog out of malice, and that's what you took from it?

This is beyond pathetic.

Well the 2 of you can always be counted on to provide your unbiased opinions. Why would I not call it equally as bad when, he was the one that said there was "no scaling of badness". So if there is no scaling and "no degree" another thing he said. Then they can be nothing other that equal. 

No one can argue the merit of the thought only the semantics. Even when Matt did try to refute the point by providing example; he had both people committing an act. Not one single thought in your head makes you a bad person. It is your actions in regards to those thoughts that makes one bad.

Yep, pathetic. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2018, 04:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well the 2 of you can always be counted on to provide your unbiased opinions. Why would I not call it equally as bad when, he was the one that said there was "no scaling of badness". So if there is no scaling and "no degree" another thing he said. Then they can be nothing other that equal. 

Yep, pathetic. 

Actually, I never said that there was no scaling, no degrees, or no spectrum. I said I wasn't discussing those things and they weren't a part of my assertion. They were irrelevant to the conversation.

Let me see if I can help you out. Say goodness and badness are on a -1 to 1 scale. Below zero is bad, above zero is good. I was disputing your assertion, we'll call it the null hypothesis, that thoughts do not make one bad. This means that the null is a score for thoughts alone is greater than or equal to zero. My alternative hypothesis was that thoughts can give you a score of less than zero.

Neither one of us is saying how much less than zero. I'm not arguing that thinking about shooting the stray dog in the yard is a -0.75 and so is actually shooting it. They would fall on different places on that scale, to me anyway, but that wasn't the argument. The hypotheses presented in the argument don't care about where they fall above or below zero, only that they do.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2018, 04:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not one single thought in your head makes you a bad person. It is your actions in regards to those thoughts that makes one bad.

Now I am confused.

If it is "deeds not thoughts" then does killing a dog make a person good or bad?

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 04:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Actually, I never said that there was no scaling, no degrees, or no spectrum. I said I wasn't discussing those things and they weren't a part of my assertion. They were irrelevant to the conversation.

Let me see if I can help you out. Say goodness and badness are on a -1 to 1 scale. Below zero is bad, above zero is good. I was disputing your assertion, we'll call it the null hypothesis, that thoughts do not make one bad. This means that the null is a score for thoughts alone is greater than or equal to zero. My alternative hypothesis was that thoughts can give you a score of less than zero.

Neither one of us is saying how much less than zero. I'm not arguing that thinking about shooting the stray dog in the yard is a -0.75 and so is actually shooting it. They would fall on different places on that scale, to me anyway, but that wasn't the argument. The hypotheses presented in the argument don't care about where they fall above or below zero, only that they do.

Yeah, a null hypotheses means all things considered equal.  You assigned no statistical difference. So what else can one consider it, but equal?

And with your outstanding statistics lesson, you still haven't provided an example where thought only makes one a bad person. I've got a pretty good idea why you have not provided such an example. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 04:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now I am confused.

If it is "deeds not thoughts" then does killing a dog make a person good or bad?

Depends on the motivation for killing the dog, our thoughts can mitigate our actions, but regardless the action, not the thought, is the effect. 




Hopefully that clears up your confusion; I cannot believe folks cannot grasp this.

[Belsnickel]

(10-09-2018, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, a null hypotheses means all things considered equal.  You assigned no statistical difference. So what else can one consider it, but equal?

Since the discussion was over a dichotomy, you would be correct for the purposes of the discussion. There is either bad or not bad. As the disagreement was not based upon the gradation but only on the dichotomy, there was no need to assign any statistical difference as they would be categorized the same regardless of any difference in severity.

(10-09-2018, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And with your outstanding statistics lesson, you still haven't provided an example where thought only makes one a bad person. I've got a pretty good idea why you have not provided such an example. 

Well, I did ask you:

(10-09-2018, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Question as a follow-up: if person B's thoughts were known to society, would society consider them a bad person for thinking in that way?

To which you replied:

(10-09-2018, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 3. Perhaps, but not as bad as the person that actually shot the dog. Get it yet? 

So dealing solely with the dichotomy that the discussion was about, you agreed that thoughts alone could be used to consider someone a bad person.

[ballsofsteel]

Trump holds his news conferences outside with just Fox news asking the softball questions.

[BmorePat87]

(10-09-2018, 04:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well the 2 of you can always be counted on to provide your unbiased opinions. Why would I not call it equally as bad when, he was the one that said there was "no scaling of badness". So if there is no scaling and "no degree" another thing he said. Then they can be nothing other that equal. 

No one can argue the merit of the thought only the semantics. Even when Matt did try to refute the point by providing example; he had both people committing an act. Not one single thought in your head makes you a bad person. It is your actions in regards to those thoughts that makes one bad.

Yep, pathetic. 

Man, even when your rampant misrepresentation is called out, you respond by doing it even more. 

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2018, 04:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Depends on the motivation for killing the dog, our thoughts can mitigate our actions, but regardless the action, not the thought, is the effect. 




Hopefully that clears up your confusion; I cannot believe folks cannot grasp this.

No.  This did not clear up anything.

Does that ACT of killing another person make you "good" or "bad"?

I can't answer that without knowing the THOUGHTS in the persons head, can you?

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 05:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. Since the discussion was over a dichotomy, you would be correct for the purposes of the discussion. There is either bad or not bad. As the disagreement was not based upon the gradation but only on the dichotomy, there was no need to assign any statistical difference as they would be categorized the same regardless of any difference in severity.


Well, I did ask you:

To which you replied:

2. So dealing solely with the dichotomy that the discussion was about, you agreed that thoughts alone could be used to consider someone a bad person.

1. As I said; we must consider them to be equal.

2. Sure did, but your feeble caveat was "If the thoughts were known". They could only be known through action; even if that action were nothing more than expressing the thoughts. 

You still have not provided an example where merely a person's thoughts make them a bad person. But at least Fred and Pat seem to see it your way; although, I'm not sure we can consider them an unbiased source.

[*bfine32*]

(10-09-2018, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  This did not clear up anything.

Does that ACT of killing another person make you "good" or "bad"?

I can't answer that without knowing the THOUGHTS in the persons head, can you?

Sure can't, but you cannot kill a person with your thoughts. 

As I stated thought (motive) can mitigate or exacerbate the action; but the action is still required. 

Sorry you still cannot grasp the concept. Perhaps we could meet up and I could draw a picture in crayon or perhaps a presentation using sock puppets.