a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I agree with some of what you said, particularly when evaluating any single falsehood in isolation. I was not clear about what I meant in using the
word expectations. It's funny how I don't just have cognitive bias of different sorts but actual blind spots you pointed out. My comments could
easily be misconstrued, oops. However, I cannot simply deflect and make a plea to other intentions where this is concerned:
Given Trump’s dashing of all presidential expectations, this sort of appeal to tradition simply doesn’t work anymore. Trump can, and does, comment
on whatever he wants.
That should be addressed. My argument might trigger an emotional response and "appeal to emotion" never mind tradition. A logical fallacy indeed. I
might be clever and attempting to leverage that and so my alphabetical points must therefore stand up to that scrutiny. Words matter, and I have
repeatedly used the word "expectation."
So without pulling out a dictionary, in using the term expectation I mean that "lacking any actual evidence to the contrary." [I mean it operates that
way right now]
Beyond speculation in comments and the media, I do not see any fundamental change in how the WH is organised and operates relative to prior
administrations with two exceptions. First, the media (Twitter) used to communicate is different from a traditional stand point. Having said that,
most governments use Twitter to communicate the public. This isn't a "new" thing. Now perhaps Trump uses that in a new way. Second, a case might be
made that the shear volume of communications has increased relative to past American and other global leaders.
What else is different then? It otherwise seems an extraordinary claim for you to make. The onus of proof is reversed and needs to demonstrate there
is some essential difference in the administration with Mr. Trump in that role. Same positions, departments, legislation process, etc. What is
different in a substantive way?
Trump can, and does, comment on whatever he wants.
Is that the difference? I see that as a conflation. Let me try to keep within the terms of service on this site. Were Mr Trump to advocate a violent
assault in some way on any specific person that might constitute a criminal offense. Has he done that or something like that? That's debatable. So if
you mean he can simply comment on anything, then I suppose that is true in a limited way depending on the context and content of his comment.
Further, the idea that a president should be a valid source of information is a wrong one.
OK maybe. How? Based on the concept of necessary secrecy? All politicians lie? Could you clarify?
The false dichotomy of lying vs grossly incompetent doesn’t factor in numerous other possibilities.
My mistake, you are correct. I presented a false dichotomy when only a detailed list would be valid. The list I observed in this thread (although far
from complete,) included:
i) Intentional Lie.
ii) Some degree of incompetence including gross.
iii) The mental illness argument.
iv) Necessary secrecy.
v) Strategic partisan position.
vi) "Fake" falsities.
Not a very complete list. Your evidence based approach is very important. If intent may be directly related to motive the full scope of motivation
should not be ignored. It might be key to establishing proof.
I suggest that the remainder of you response should stand unchallenged but with an important distinction. Your entire argument requires some clearer
definition of what you mean by proof. What are the rules of evidence:
a) Enough for criminal conviction?
b) The standard used in civil court?
c) Is eye witness testimony enough? How many witnesses?
d) Does proof require a paper trail?
It [is] not that you were unclear about a requirement for proof. For example "d)" would not even apply to many of the falsities but might
(conceivably) apply to the crowd size example. We must define our terms and that one needs clarification if this conversation is to proceed in a
constructive manner. I fully support your effort and believe that MSM bias could largely [be] removed from the issue using the correct methodology
although it would require some effort and resources.
edit on 29-12-2017 by PDP11 because: grammar corrections indicated by
edit on 30-12-2017 by PDP11 because: grammar: largely [be] removed
edit on 30-12-2017 by PDP11 because: A bit late
but clarification needed. [I mean it operates that way right now]