• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump files lawsuit against NY Times

joe1776

Well-Known Member
If you had more than incorrect inference, you'd quote me.
Re-read.
You'll see.
Here's what you wrote:

It's interesting....
So many claim that Trump aspires to be dictator...the next Hitler.
He's destroying democracy...he'll remain in office illegally...etc.
And yet, how many dictators pursue legal remedies in the courts
for libel or slander?
If the inference of your comment is not that it would be unlike dictators to use legal methods to consolidate their power, what did you mean? Offer a reason that would explain why the fact that Trump avails himself of legal means to combat his enemies should tell us that he isn't the wannabe dictator that I think he is.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Here's what you wrote:

If the inference of your comment is not that it would be unlike dictators to use legal methods to consolidate their power, what did you mean? Offer a reason that would explain why the fact that Trump avails himself of legal means to combat his enemies should tell us that he isn't the wannabe dictator that I think he is.
And not just legal means.

Holding up military funds did not just become legal because Trump's minions in the Senate decided not to follow through.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Here's what you wrote:

If the inference of your comment is not that it would be unlike dictators to use legal methods to consolidate their power, what did you mean? Offer a reason that would explain why the fact that Trump avails himself of legal means to combat his enemies should tell us that he isn't the wannabe dictator that I think he is.
You're inferring too much from a question.
Now that we've established that inference
as erroneous, let's not be distracted by it.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You're inferring too much from a question.
Now that we've established that inference
as erroneous, let's not be distracted by it.
You can easily establish that the inference I took from your comment was wrong by offering a different inference that makes sense. The fact that you don't seem to be able to come up with another plausible inference settles the issue: you were wrong.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You can easily establish that the inference I took from your comment was wrong by offering a different inference that makes sense. The fact that you don't seem to be able to come up with another plausible inference settles the issue: you were wrong.
I understand gleaning incorrect inferences.
I'm quite skilled at doing that.
But you're still wrong.
And to argue with me about what I meant....that's blitheringly stumpflinger.
Let it go...for your own sake.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I understand gleaning incorrect inferences.
I'm quite skilled at doing that.
But you're still wrong.
And to argue with me about what I meant....that's blitheringly stumpflinger.
Let it go...for your own sake.
You could easily prove me wrong by offering another inference that makes sense. Instead, you claim I misunderstood you but offer no other plausible inference. Give me another reasonable inference and I'll admit I was wrong. If you can't do that.....
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Kinda like the way Trump changed this "Nation of Immigrants" into "Fortress America", and enough people voted for that kind of progress to get him into the White House.
Tom

Trump is only building on and continuing what past administrations were doing.

Approximately %28 of Hispanics voted for Trump.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Apparently not...

At least not if by "elaborated my views" you mean "communicated my intended message".
Is there still confusion about Trump using legal
rather than illegal means to (fight libel) failing as
evidence that he's a nascent dictator?
Perhaps our friend is clear about my meaning, but
prefers to harp on his earlier erroneous inference,
ie, to win on some point on parsing of words in a
question, lest he admit error. To argue that I didn't
mean what I say I meant is a doomed pursuit.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Is there still confusion about Trump using legal
rather than illegal means to (fight libel) failing as
evidence that he's a nascent dictator?
I'm having trouble parsing that...
Perhaps our friend is clear about my meaning, but
prefers to harp on his earlier erroneous inference,
ie, to win on some point on parsing of words in a
question, lest he admit error. To argue that I didn't
mean what I say I meant is a doomed pursuit.
It's possible. It's also possible that you did a poor job communicating what you meant though, and that clarification would be helpful. If communication is your goal, that is.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm having trouble parsing that...

It's possible. It's also possible that you did a poor job communicating what you meant though, and that clarification would be helpful. If communication is your goal, that is.
What do you infer from the question I posed?
(The one from which he made the wrong inference.)
 

SoyLeche

meh...
What do you infer from the question I posed?
(The one from which he made the wrong inference.)
I’m having trouble finding it and am just on my phone...

but I think you may have been making some kind of point that would be better made in the context of conditional probability. But that’s with the benefit of hindsight and additional information.

I think his inference was reasonable though.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I’m having trouble finding it and am just on my phone...

but I think you may have been making some kind of point that would be better made in the context of conditional probability. But that’s with the benefit of hindsight and additional information.

I think his inference was reasonable though.
You can't find it, yet you judge his inference?
I must say.....I'm not impressed with that.

You guys are arguing over whether an inference taken
from a question I asked is reasonable....& this is after
I set him straight on my meaning.
Why does this matter?
 

SoyLeche

meh...
You can't find it, yet you judge his inference?
I must say.....I'm not impressed with that.

You guys are arguing over whether an inference taken
from a question I asked is reasonable....& this is after
I set him straight on my meaning.
Why does this matter?
Going off my recollection. Point me in the right direction and I’ll do a more thorough analysis.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It makes sense if you realize that "extra-legal means" encompasses
the full universe of illegalities one might commit, eg, murder, pogroms,
coup, imperious decree, massacre, gulags, censoring opponents.

Even dictators have to give off the appearance of legitimacy. There were still courts and trials under Hitler and Stalin. They even had show trials.

Note that I'm not claiming that Trump is a dictator or has any intentions of becoming one, but I don't see how the use of the court system and/or trials would automatically mean that it's not a dictatorship.

As for the massacres, gulags, censoring opponents, etc., these are things to which the general public would not be privy, and it certainly wouldn't be reported in the press.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Going off my recollection. Point me in the right direction and I’ll do a more thorough analysis.
I looked back at the multitude of posts, & find that it's not
entirely clear what in which posts he's objecting to now.
If you read the thread, & quote something you take issue
with, & I'll address it.
But consider that we're taking over the thread with drama
that few are interested in.

I'll state a position to address (in lieu of rehashing what came
before):
Trump is using usual legal means to address what he believes
to be libel. This does not indicate his being a dictator.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Even dictators have to give off the appearance of legitimacy. There were still courts and trials under Hitler and Stalin. They even had show trials.

Note that I'm not claiming that Trump is a dictator or has any intentions of becoming one, but I don't see how the use of the court system and/or trials would automatically mean that it's not a dictatorship.

As for the massacres, gulags, censoring opponents, etc., these are things to which the general public would not be privy, and it certainly wouldn't be reported in the press.
My point is not:
Using the court to sue for libel proves he's not a dictator.

My point is:
Using the court to sue for libel does not prove that he is a dictator.

Is the distinction clear?
Recently edited to pursue maximum clarity.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
My point is not:
Using the court to sue for libel proves he's not a dictator.

My point is:
Using the court to sue for libel does not prove that he is a dictator.

Is the distinction clear?
Recently edited to pursue maximum clarity.

Yes, the distinction is clear. Did anyone claim that he is a dictator because he is using the court to sue for libel?

I don't think anyone has definitively claimed that Trump is a dictator right now. I think the fear is that he will try to use and abuse the system in order to achieve that level of power. Personally, I don't believe that to be the case, although I can see where some might see it that way.
 
Top