iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:54 pm
Misconstruing my point [again] of course.
The point? That in regard to the
Rust shooting and Baldwin's criminal liability, she notes one collection of facts based on what she has read and heard and he notes another based on what he has read and heard. Then there are the facts as accumulated by those who chose to charge Baldwin. Now, which set of facts reflects beyond all doubt the optimal assessment? Such that all rational people would be obligated to accept it? And such that we really would know the objective truth here?
That was exactly the point I thought you were making and the point I responded to. In my dialogue with VT she knew some facts. But also had facts that were incorrect. She also knew less of the facts. Here, for some reason, you are asking for beyond all doubt. And this seems to lead you to the conclusion that such situations cannot be resolved and one cannot be objective about it. Is anyone here saying that we can have 100% knowledge? No. For some reason you have decided that this is exactly like morals - and you bring in God below - as if this is like the objectivism issue. That's just silly. Do you really think court cases are just like the task of determining whether abortion is moral? You've repeatedly distinguished between questions of fact - like,
did the doctor remove the fetus from the mother OR
was it a good thing to do? But now that distinction gone.
Like, in a No God world, that actually does exist?
LOL
You start with this silly generalization about 'these discussions'
See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.
And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.
Note make the other person's facts go away completely. That certainly wasn't my intention, nor is that extreme criterion necessary in many cases. Versions can share facts, for example. This stacking the deck type wording is silly.
And you end up by bringing God in as what could resolve if, but we're in a No God world.
So, not just this particular discussion, but discussions in general where people disagree over the facts. Hands must be thrown up in the air.
Yah, those can't be resolved without omniscience or God because it's like a moral objectivism discussion (no way to demonstate who is right) because to be objective or to demonstate something requires complete certainty, unequivocal conclusion, complete elimination of all assertions made by the other person and every human on the planet would immediately bow down to the conclusion. These are the kinds of criteria you claim are needed for objective conclusions, so...
throw the hands up in the air.
Earlier you saw a division between some kinds of disagreements that could be resolved and others. Now it is just a sea of unknowing. Well, except for your own mindreading and knowledge that his case cannot be objectively resolved.
And I notice that you make not the slightest effort to be specific. You don't list her facts and mine and compare them or go into how they relate to each other or what evidence each person brought forward. You stay up in the clouds in abstraction. We somehow have these two lists of facts and one cannot possibly judge between them and the court will have the same problem. You see categories and draw some general position and throw up your hands. Whereas one can see that I added facts, cited sources, could demonstrate that at least some of her facts were wrong and incomplete and not all her facts need be false for him to be guilty. This
can happen with things that are not issues of conflicting goods. And it's not some rare exception in the world of events. Well, unless you throw in the 100% certain criterion, one that you don't apply to your own conclusions in this thread while being rude to people or telling us that the court case can't resolve this.
Then the assumption others make that in a court of law, a jury verdict establishes this. And in some cases, sure, the evidence is so overwhelming that the verdict almost certainly is the correct one. But in a case like this?
What facts about the case -lol - indicate to you that this case is in one category and not in the other. You seem to think, having read about the case, that there cannot be overwhelming evidence one way or the other. So, you have made a decision yourself that you seem to think others cannot. You think you know objectively that there is no clear case either way. But if we were to take a position that it looks like he's guilty, we can't know that. Or the opposite. (I know, you'll claim you never said you knew, you never made claims...walks like a duck, talks like a duck, when this is pointed out, you claim not to ever have though you were a duck. Even though socially you went so far as to insult people for not being ducks like you)
I don't know for sure that he is guilty. From what BOTH sides have said, I think it was criminal negligence. But we can see if his experts can counter what the FBI says, for example. If they can't, then he probably lied. For example. Other things we already know.
I think that vt dismissed the prosecution without knowing things like he said he didn't pull the trigger. Or without considering that he was a producer on set and with decades of having to deal with gun rules on set. She said actors are morons or kids or something. And did not mention that he was a producer on set and had long experience of using guns on set, so he can't just throw up his arms and claim ignorance. Further she didn't seem to know that he says he knew the rules, the ones he didn't follow. I watched the video of him speaking about it. You get that. Her position is 1) he is innocent AND 2) the prosecution are being idiots because of X and Y. My response had to do with both positions.
In any case I added and corrected information. Is it fully damning? I can't know. Can we determine that the facts she presented were a more limited less factual rendition? Yes, I think we can. He was a producer. That's a fact not in her rendition. He has held guns in films for many years. (check what she says about actors and see if you can that her version of the facts could be improved) That's a fact. He claims he did know protocols. That's a fact. And one missing from her rendition.
But you, for some reason, pop in and throw up your hands and in a general way. We can't determine anything. Then for no reason at all bring in God. Then call out for omniscience. Here to defend yourself any decision would have to be 100% and you assume, for reasons of your own, the people other than you in the thread are claiming their positions must be 100% correct.
Then you make claims about what we are all thinking when we disagree with each other.
No, instead, in my opinion, only the most arrogant objectivists among us hold in contempt others that do not think exactly as they do about a context this inherently ambiguous.
I didn't hold her in contempt. You just projected your own contempt for objectivists onto the scenario. I didn't insult her. She insulted Skepdick but not me. I disagreed with her version. I did not insult her. She started off disagreeing with me and did not insult me. You came in an insulted everyone in the thread before you got there. Anyone who thought we could determine which versions were likely to be weak or weaker or better.
You insulted everyone as if we insulted each other in the manner you insulted everyone as
fiercely fanatical objectivists.
And when this is pointed out you can't even admit it.
Look, my perspective on morality in a No God world is that neither philosophers nor ethicists nor scientists can establish that, in regard to conflicting goods, some behaviors are inherently/necessarily/objectively moral while others are inherently/necessarily/objectively immoral. And that would include Baldwin deliberately shooting someone. That includes all human behaviors. Up to and including the Holocaust. After all, as some insist, "in the absence of God all things are permitted".
And if someone can't see the distinction between arguing that in fact Joe Biden is now president of the United States and that in fact Joe Biden is the greatest president there has ever been...?
All I can say is that if you go back and read the post you purportedly responding to here, I clearly understand what you meant.
No, my point is that omniscience is clearly not necessary to establish that Baldwin did in fact shoot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Rust set. And that she died. But given the complexity of all the variables intertwined here, how would someone who is not "all knowing" unequivocally establish that he broke the law?
Again, you seem to think it has to be 100%.
Unequivocably.
Her version was less accurate then mine and I presented support for that. If you think my version was not better, let me know why. (ah, don't bother, or at least not for my sake or our interaction's sake) This is all just up in the clouds stuff, on your part, as you would say.
I then rendered my opinion about his guilt. I believe I left room for more information to come out, for my mind to be changed later. I thought there was enough to have a court case. And guess what. In a court case they can decide there is not enough evidence.
For some reason this got me painted as an objectivist - now including not just related to moral realism but for thinking there can be objective conclusions about where people have differing opinions about anything. And further that I am, amongst others, someone with contempt for people who disagreed with me. And as if the people involved couldn't be civil with each other. I was civil with vt and she was civil with me. I don't know why she wasn't with Skepdick but perhaps it might occur to you that it didn't depend on his position but on his way of writing to her or past experiences she had with him. Have you interacted with Skepdick much? Oh, perhaps that's bringing the discussion of your insults too far down to the ground. Stay up in the clouds and don't look at any details or contexts.
Now you may claim...oh, but I don't really know. But that's after making assertions and insulting people and writing about their motivations (things in other minds than yours you claim to know about). For someone skeptical about the possibilities for knowledge you'd think you'd be more careful about the labels you give others and the assertions you make about their internal states. When you make claims and assertions it is never intended as claims (lol). When others say anything, it is meant as 100% and further when they insult it is a sign of objectivism, when you do it is a sign of...I don't know a cognitive fart??
But no, you come in, certain enough in your judgments to mind read, insult
and missing the irony
that you are categorizing people insultingly while judging them for.....
categorizing people insultingly.
Understand. You seem to think you had enough evidence to draw conclusion about other people's internal states, including mine, didn't throw up your hands, but felt you could draw a conclusion. Is the problem of other minds a problem for you? Seems not to be.
And...you think you have enough facts to think it is unlikely this case can actually be resolved objectively. Which means....
you evaluated what you see as the facts and drew an objective conclusion.
Most of this was clear in my previous post.
I'm sure you're a nice neighbor or whatever, but next time you flail into a conversation and start categorizing and insulting people...I dunno, maybe find that beam in your own eye. Cause it's really annoying when people take the high moral ground -
Oh, I'm not an objectivist like you guys - then you do all the things you are complaining the objectivists are doing. Showing contempt. Insulting. And seeming to think you have evaluated the facts enough to draw an objective conclusion (that we can't really know if he's guilty, nor could they determine this in a court).
The ironies abound.
A small request. Leave me out of your insulting, mind reading claims in the future. I'll focus on other people's posts and not yours. It's like wading through your twisting things. I'll pass, again, for a while.
I find myself, in such discussions with you, so far here, going over the same ground in a few different paraphrases in the hopes that some, perhaps small, point of concession will arise. Of course, it's not your fault that I have this reaction to your misrepresentations, denials, convenient reframings and seeming (also convenient) hypocrisy. But regardless, it's suddenly like being at work. I find myself acting as if it is so unlikely you will actually take any of this seriously and take a real look at your behavior. Hence the long-windedness and rewordings.
So, I'll stop here, since you're senstive to other people's huffing and puffing (but not your own).
And yes, I know. I made you the issue. Oh wait, no, you took that tack and I pointed out the philosophical problems with it and returned the favor. You don't always make people the issue, but you often do. Then play the victim.