EzraS wrote:
Personally I usually try to view claims like a judge would and rule out anything that falls under such conditions as being circumstantial evidence, anecdotal evidence, hearsay, conjecture and speculation (not to mention mountains of sensationalism). It seems like most if not all the stuff I see people accusing him of falls into those categories. Plus a great number of things said against Trump have been by way of prognostication. Now if he's as bad as many claim, it shouldn't take much time now that he's in office for there to be solid evidence. So far I haven't seen any.
Well, I'd say that one of the real worries about Trump is how he goes around pretending that he didn't say something, when the evidence is right there on Twitter. That is just damn peculiar. So the question is really; is a habitual liar, or does he really believe the stuff he's saying? Either option is worrisome.
What I sometimes find lacking when people discuss sources is that a lot of people seem to think they are capable of making judgments about things they really know nothing about. So when a fraudster like Vaknin goes around armchair diagnosing people, I don't really spend much time on it; he has no credibility and no access to Obama, so listening to him is pointless. But when people whose job is to diagnose personality disorders go about and say someone has a personality disorder, I think it's worth listening to them. They may not always be right, but I put the probability of their being right much higher than if I were to make a judgment myself.
That's what's so strange; it seems everybody is convinced they're an expert on everything. There seems to be very little openness to the idea that there is a world of things out there that we know little about but others do. What happened to asking someone who knows something?
_________________
I sometimes leave conversations and return after a long time. I am sorry about it, but I need a lot of time to think about it when I am not sure how I feel.
28 Jan 2017, 4:15 am
