MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Lula begins tour of south Brazil and meets Mujica, but it was a bad day for both leaders
Protesters interrupted the start on Monday of an election campaign tour by former Brazilian president Lula da Silva, who leads opinion polls but faces a lengthy jail sentence for corruption. Police had to intervene to separate some 150 protesting farmers and Lula's supporters in Bage, where the populist leader was starting a bus tour of southern Brazil ahead of October 7 elections. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMight be a good idea for Lula to make Parana his last stop of this ridiculous campaign tour, then he could go straight to prison, in Curitiba.
Mar 20th, 2018 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I doubt any of the British “geniuses” we see proliferate the internet these days will be able to give me a sensible answer to this serious question. But I'll try anyways.
Mar 21st, 2018 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you think, traditionally associated to non British alignment so called “populist” parties in Latin America have a constantly re emerging historical pattern and often become supported by vast majorities in these nations?
I'll ask it differently, being that the answer should be the same:
Why is it that we constantly see British governments oppose, criticize or at the very least in discretion hold back support of left current, labor or populist political parties in Latin America, while those parties often present themselves in no spirit cajoling of Britain standing usually on strong nationalistic passions?
Again, should be the same answer:
What would be the argument at hand between these two political general areas in the world, and what is it that has always caused this sort of disdain in these parties towards Britain? Naturally I would expect whoever feels like taking the challenge of responding to this question, to parallel each of the two sides in what they each respectively do, and not hear the usual “well poor little good doer Britain has done nothing but give and give and give, only to have its kindhearted face slapped by ungrateful dictatorial irate governments that have no clue what they are doing in life or for their countries” (I imagine this British saint-hood march around the world must have reached exhausting levels by now!)
@PE
Mar 21st, 2018 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't underestimate other people's intelligence, or judge them by your own...
Regarding your philosophical question as to why 'populists' have a ceratin amount of success in Latin American countries, I don't profess to know the correct answer, but off the bat I'd say that it has to do with the poverty situation, which in turn impacts their capacity to get a decent education, which fuels the vicious circle, in that populist candidates promise what the poor want to hear (even though impossible to accomplish), enough to get them elected until those who voted them in, eventually realize they've been taken for a ride.
Look at Venezuela....Chavez was elected - democratically - by a population that wanted constructive changes....what did they get ? a Bolivarian State, in which millions are going hungry, can't buy basic staples, no medicines, have lost their right to free-speech and ended up with an idiot like Maduro...causing a massive exodus, with dozens of thousands fleeing the country, to mainly Colombia and to Brazil....Took quite a bit of time, but finally, the same people who 10 years ago worshipped Chavez, now want Maduro gone...
As to why the British governments oppose what they do - even if we consider your question a valid one - don't feel qualified to answer as I don't live there.
Your constant criticism of everything the British ever did, would indicate that you only see what you want to and have some personal grudge against Britain....more of a personal problem of your's, than of the Brits.
@PE
Mar 21st, 2018 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not a genius, but I'll have a go at your second question: why does Britain oppose this sort of government?
I would say it's simple self interest. The populist left wing governments tend to be anti-free trade, anti-foreign investment, and often nationalise or worse expropriate foreign firms and property.
Compare how much progress was (not) made towards a trade deal between Mercosur and the EU during the KK and PT governments, compared to the last couple of years.
And incidents like this one tend to mightily piss off countries with investments in SA:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/17/spain-argentina-oil-company-ypf
The populist governments also like to blame Britain and the EU, the US, and institutions like the IMF and World Bank for their problems, rightly or wrongly. Chavez in particular set himself up as something of a rival to the US, supplying cheap oil to any country willing to ally with him and ranting about Evil Imperialist America(tm) at every opportunity. That is not the way to make friends.
As to your first question, I suppose populists are common partly because of the high levels of inequality, and neglect of a large segment of the population by the more conventional politicians. The essence of populism is blaming a corrupt 'elite' for the country's problems, which is easy to do in that situation.
Do genuine elections exist, ANYWHERE?
Mar 22nd, 2018 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Fake profiles”:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43371212
Talking of populist governments, of which the PT’s are perfect examples, I'll just refer to the famous ”Program for the Acceleration of Growth” (known as PACs, 1 & 2) launched by Lula in the 1st yr of his 2nd term, to build Brazil’s infrastructure (ports, highways, airports, railroads, energy, sewage), in order for Brazil to become a big player at a world level.
Mar 22nd, 2018 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0N.B.: no money allocated towards education, health or public security projects.
He chose to launch the program just ‘after’ he had ‘extricated' himself from the 'mensalão' corruption scheme (2007), with the likely sole intention of trying to salvage his image.
He launched a 2nd one in 2010, with the objective of facilitating Dilma’s election. At the time, the ‘ambitious’ project, to which about USD 350 billion would be allocated, over 10 year period, and which promised to put Brazil in the 1st world, raised eyebrows due to its ambitiousness and the possibility it would be a cover up for unprecedented corruption.
Shortly afterwards, many projects were stopped, to investigate the suspicion of corruption….all the big construction companies, Odebrecht, OAS, and half a dozen others, the same ones investigated, and convicted, in the ‘lavajato’, were given the contracts. It has been reported that in 2017, of the 22,000 unfinished projects, funded by the PT governments, 66% are now (still) stopped, under investigation for fraud and corruption….seems that the PT’s biggest legacy is the fact that billions have disappeared down the drain of corruption…thousands of projects unfinished (some not even started) and the money has gone.
In retrospect, looks like the PAC’s were only ‘created' to permit corruption.
Thanks for having a go at answering my question.
Mar 22nd, 2018 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm pleased to note that EVERYBODY does care: REF: “it was a bad day for both leaders”
Mar 23rd, 2018 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@JB
Mar 23rd, 2018 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Something I have heard is that the populist governments are not more corrupt per se than eg the military ones, but their policies including grand projects like the ones you mention, a greater role for the state, and nationalisation, create many more opportunities for corruption. If the state is corrupt then increasing its role can be a risky proposition, although the private sector is not necessarily any better.
In my experience, government projects always seem to go wildly over budget and wildly past their deadline. On the other hand, when the government employs the private sector to take on a project instead, it still goes wildly over budget and over-time, the company goes bankrupt, and the taxpayer has to pick up the tab anyway.
@PE
So what's your opinion? I suspect it involves Britain being evil somehow?
All of your descriptions typically reflect the detached criticisms by a foreign nation external to any pertinent self awareness and therefore truthful assessment of a real condition of the country being talked about, from a country which obviously thinks very highly of itself and pedantically for the reasons that may be, needs to put down through its explanations the description of other countries.
Mar 23rd, 2018 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll make it sweet and simply for both of you.
First corner stone principal in the desire for a nation by us humans on this planet, is so that we, an integrally indivisible group of people, can chart our own course among the other groups of people in their own same integral capacity. This means “a nation” is the first natural building block of social governmental order. In the laws of cause and effect or action-reaction, the first upset and thus required defense comes from the first assault at this primary integrity body of natural order. Whatever level or form it may come in. Hence today you see in the world laid over this fundamental plane condition, two situations. Countries or Nations that generally are holding their integrity steadily, and countries or nations whose integrities, though it may not necessarily show on the outside, are acutely challenged or compromised in the strength of their own course. These are the cases where naturally, we will see the reemergence or reoccurring forms of nationalistic protectionism, popular-ism, autocratic dictatorships, and other forms of regaining a sense of self before a perceived accosting by foreign influences or aggregations. It's a very “holistic” understanding, observed in the natural world as well. There is only one answer to it. That countries respect one another as equals and stop trying to manipulate other country's vulnerabilities.
@JB
Mar 23rd, 2018 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jack's analysis of populism's “certain amount of success” in Latin America is fascinating:
”...populist candidates promise what the poor want to hear (even though impossible to accomplish).“
Hear, hear: poverty reduction is ”impossible to accomplish.”
Typical of the wealthy few, who bristle at the idea of reducing the abysmal gap between the haves and the haves not.
Not saying Jack is wealthy--don't know that--but in LA, some middle-class individuals identify with the ultra rich by adopting their discourse--makes them feel part of the club.
@EM
Mar 23rd, 2018 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See you are learning fast from Terry Liar Hill...keep it up, it really suits you. Right Reekie, you have no idea whether I'm wealthy or just 'well off', but you are welcome to keep on speculating, as if I had something in common with “some middle-class individuals” in LA. Lol.
Despite 'your' 'discourse' being typically of a 'wanna be', I recommend you keep on trying.... the game ain't over until it ends.
@PE
Mar 23rd, 2018 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“All of your descriptions typically reflect the detached criticisms by a foreign nation external to any pertinent self awareness and therefore truthful assessment of a real condition of the country being talked about”
Have you never considered that this works both ways? I don't pretend any great knowledge of Latin America since I've never lived there. Yet you seem to think you perfectly understand Britain and its people, despite not being British, and never having lived here.
Notice that I said a lot about Britain's opinion, and very little about populism itself, because the former is the part I am most qualified to answer. While JB, who has lived almost all his life in South America, did the opposite for the very same reason.
As for your theory, I think it is a strange one for a duel national to hold. Which 'integrally indivisible' group of people do you consider yourself to belong to? Or can we allow that people are part of more than one group? I only have one passport, but I consider myself English, British, and European.
Also, speaking of the emergence of populism and nationalistic protectionism, do you feel that the US's national integrity is currently acutely challenged or compromised?
@EM
Not only in LA do the middle class identify with the rich.
But how about you answer Patrick's question? I'm sure he'd consider Canadian close enough to British, and you evidently have a very different view to Jack.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Mar 24th, 2018 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Terry Liar Hill.” If what you claim is true where is the evidence? Oops Houston we have problem.
Whereas your untruths are so common place.
JB “Your insistence that I'm a fascist”
Brazil's corruption scandals reach Lula da Silva: ...
12 Jack Bauer; “..'Military dictatorship', ..history is showing,.. that it was good for Brazil
50 Jack Bauer; “Military taking over again, ….. they did it to prevent Brazil from being handed over to the communists. ... the Military , I hope, would be there again to save Brazil
Brazil remembers the 50th anniversary of the coupe…
15 Jack Bauer; “..Am pretty sure that military are accompanying all this … I hope they DO take over...”
JB “The military option was better than the communist”
“The US can point to nothing even remotely threatening done by the Brazilian Communist Party”
h ttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/soa/brazil.htm
“The idea that toilet paper cannot be flushed down toilets, is true in only 'parts”
Is absolutely false as besides myself, four other sites have confirmed. While as usual you cannot produce any support for your claim, which therefore confirms your assertion is untrue.
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/07/20/ex-brazilian-president-assets-and-bank-accounts-frozen/comments#comment471252
@DT
Mar 24th, 2018 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some of PE's questions, which appear to be borderline with some abstract notions he has, can only be answered from the perspective, or perception, of each individual on the matter.....so, to come up with definitive reply, or generally accepted explanation, would need further research/study on the situation....yet, when you attempt to answer them, he comes back questioning your perception, as if you are miles off target. If he 'knows', then why ask ? But, an opinion, based on perception over a reasonable period of time, will always be an opinion, whether it objectively reflects the real factors which influence the situation, or not.
And have you noticed that Terry Liar Hill, entertains us with the 'same post', time and time again, as a protest ? adding no new or original ideas (to the discussion), of which he obviously has none...his nurse must have hidden his dictionaries.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Mar 24th, 2018 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Terry Liar Hill, entertains us with the 'same post” Ain’t the truth a bitch, it’s CONCLUSIVE PROOF YOU ARE A LIAR. Plus you cannot support your claim that I am a liar. As “Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.” plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
You are further identified as both a liar and a libeller as your claim isn’t true, according to this criteria.
I'm not expressing opinions or personal perspectives Demon-Tree. I'm trying to explain something I believe to understand given various things I've learned and listened to throughout my life. ... So since I had another “mysterious disappearance” again, I just went and made A VIDEO FOR YOU, and added it to my channel. Before I write down the link, I want to try and get something across to everyone here. There are basically two ways in which you can apply yourself in listening to someone on a video, or for that matter reading what someone writes. One is being non defensively open, like when you choose to attend a class or listen to a seminar others have been talking about, for example. This way allows you to be more objective, broad and far reaching in your comprehension, and non critically allowing of you to arrive at where what the person is saying may be applicable, in a process where your mind is more occupied by seeing what the person means, rather than predominantly negating it. The other is way is by going at it with your mind made up to find faults and defects. Your whole concentration is geared up to find the cracks, or silly language glitches and apparent nonsensical inconclusive notions. The faster you discredit what the person says the closer you feel to your own success.
Mar 24th, 2018 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the second case, often most people don't so blatantly fool themselves and thus construct a semblance of objectivity, picking out a few worthy points in their overall patronizing spirit. I'm certain all of you realize which of these two tendencies, is the better one, and best for you.
Here is the address to the video link, which I intentionally spaced in obvious places, so that the Merco Press site would not automatically boot it:
h ttps : / / ww w.youtube.com / watch?v=Iu0fHMYu85M
Says me :
Mar 24th, 2018 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Terry Liar Hill, entertains us with the 'same post”
Terry Liar Hill says : “Ain’t the truth a bitch, it’s CONCLUSIVE PROOF YOU ARE A LIAR”.
Now, we all know that you DO believe that by incessantly repeating your lies, they will become the truth....and the beauty of it is that I don't need any support for my claim - as you have managed to prove CONCLUSIVELY, all by your little self, that you are a liar. Congrats !
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Mar 25th, 2018 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have shown where you’ve lied and therefor met my burden. You haven’t shown one instance where your claim(assertion) is true. Therefore, by failing to meet your burden, it is not. In fact ,the only person who is truthful is the one who proves, and that certainly isn’t you, my little fascist friend.
“AN ASSERTION IS A STATEMENT OFFERED AS A CONCLUSION WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SINCE AN ARGUMENT IS DEFINED AS A LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREMISE AND CONCLUSION, A SIMPLE ASSERTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
CALL G. M.
Mar 25th, 2018 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/sarkozy-preso.jpg?w=650&ssl=1
@PE
Mar 25th, 2018 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bloody hell, that was long! Also, you sound way more American when you talk, somehow in writing you appear more Argentine.
I think I understand what you are saying, and it certainly does happen that one country will prop up a leader or government in another for their own benefit. So I agree that part is true, BUT, wanting its resources is not the only reason that one country would care about who governs another. For example, if two countries are fighting, and both want the support of a third. Or if the third country has a port or something that the first would like to use (I suppose that could be considered a resource). Or one country wants to sell their products to another, and the government there does not allow it. Or because that country could be a threat, and so they want it to have a friendly government. Or nowadays, to get more support in the UN.
If you want some examples, France and Spain helped the US in their war for independence in order to weaken Britain. Britain supported the Spanish colonies achieving independence mostly in order to sell products to them. During the Cold War, the USSR forced the countries around them to have communist governments to give them allies in a protective ring, and the US propped up the democratic governments in Western Europe with aid so they would have their own allies and also as a market for their products.
Going back in time, France supported the Jacobite Rebellions in Britain in the hope of installing a friendly king who was beholden to them, but they did not succeed.
Returning to the Americas, the USSR didn't give support to the Cuban government because they wanted their resources, but to have a base near the USA. And the US freaked out about the revolution for the same reason, not because they were so dependent on Cuban sugar.
Anyway, I'm surprised you disagreed with my previous answer since it doesn't conflict with your theory at all, maybe you didn't read it very carefully?
No space for more...
Here is the most “probable” reason [common sense]; why Lulla can't or won't be imprisoned for a LONG period: REF:
Mar 25th, 2018 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/genildo-19.jpg?zoom=0.8999999761581421&resize=564%2C400&ssl=1
I DON't disagree with what you were saying before @DemonT. In fact I find you and a couple of other blokes on this site refreshingly not aligned with the usual rhetoric. What happens with me is that I'm a Universalist or Natural Globalist, I look for the human reasons at the essential root of confrontations or problems which I simply see as one of hundreds of conflictual situations reemerging at different places, for different aspects of nationhood, in all sorts of forms or scales given the same ”human condition of our interacting mind's dynamics. In other words, what I try so poorly to describe in my improvised video, is a concept which as a wordless model in my head is very clear and tinny, seen as a sort of multi-applicable stencil simple common denominator formula condensing all problems or imbalances of any kind between countries into an equation of four exponents.
Mar 25th, 2018 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@PE
Mar 25th, 2018 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Watched your video....you are obviously a studied person, but to be honest with you, I don't share your enthusiasm regarding the philosophical aspects of your presentation...found it a bit 'lengthy' ; While I generally got the gist of what you were saying, 8 minutes were sufficient ....
@DT
Your interpretation of PE's video, was succint and clear, and you obviously had more patience than I did. Fully agree with the points you made. And, it's way more interesting to know what triggered historical events, or why they were put into action, than just knowing of the fact itself.
@PE
Mar 25th, 2018 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's often difficult trying to express an idea clearly in words, because there are other ways of thinking about things. But I find it's useful, because it helps make your thoughts clearer to yourself as well as explain them to other people. For me, examples help me understand things better, but I suspect that's not true of you.
In your metaphor of families in a valley, I don't think it's accurate to say they were ever left alone to work things out for themselves. Maybe for a few Pacific islands it was true, but nowhere else. Also you have to remember how much more unequal societies were in the past. If one king was trying to conquer the lands of another it was for his own benefit and that of a few barons, not the ordinary people in that country.
Plus I was surprised you didn't mention war, because it's such a common thing and has been throughout history. If you want some country's resources, the obvious thing is to invade and take over that country.
As for the future, I can't imagine countries will ever stop trying to influence each other, as long as they exist in their current form. And we can't live without each other, either, since pretty much no country is self sufficient.
If you think we can't handle trading without becoming corrupted, what do you propose to replace it with? Trade and commerce has the advantage of agreeing with human nature; everyone involved is working for their own benefit first, even if it ends up benefiting others as well. We saw from the failure of communism how essential this is, and I don't even know of any other options.
@JB
Yeah, it is way more interesting to know what caused events, though often historians disagree. And, I think it's interesting to imagine how the world would be different if some past event had gone differently. Some of them they hinged on surprisingly small chances.
@ Jack & Demon ... (lol, catchy!) The reason I sound so convoluted and long drawn out, is that I'm simply part of today's large population of highly exposed to information complex or deeply elaborated ideas in popular cultures. I'm flattered that you feel I'm somewhat educated. I am a little, but really I might as well be illiterate for where I'm aiming. See, people like me, who are profoundly interested in the world, but did not “pursue a political doctorate in international diplomacy at University” along with the study of all the subject matters and the life of much book reading that would entail, rather instead passively yet selectively took-in visually and audibly information from our modern day medias, is that we ascend from bellow going up towards higher knowledge and toil with understanding what we approach gradually and increasingly glimpsing more of in constant discovery. Whereas the person who's read it all and studied various interpretations of things and who are also aware of being these things having been elaborated for some time the they have, descend onto a higher knowledge they choose to subscribe to, in a world where who is familiar with what they've chosen to unfold their work on is already well aware of what they are talking about. So their explanations are not explorations, they have been established already. Whereas to people like me in this new highly informative world, experience an arrival to higher ideas struggling with how to explain them, always sounding awkward to the listener who most likely is probably someone to some degree better educated, since something in what the newbie to this nouveau liberal intellectualism touched on, called his attention. The good part or redeeming better aspect to people in my group, is that we prove the genuineness in the truthfulness of what we come to understand, instead of what many do in the upper echelons of status quo academic establishment, which is to find the worth because of what another has said.
Mar 25th, 2018 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@PE
Mar 25th, 2018 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know about Jack, but I can't say I have any more education in politics or 'international diplomacy' than you. The advantage to not having a formal education is that coming into a subject from a different direction can give you new insights, but the disadvantage (as well as not knowing the proper terms and common examples that would allow you to explain your ideas clearly), is that you are missing an understanding of the basics and therefore it is easy to come to wrong conclusions.
Some subjects are worse for this than others. Mathematics is infamous for the number of crackpots who are sure they have proved some famous theorem, or disproved some widely known but counter-intuitive result. It is always impossible to explain to these people why they are wrong; because their whole concept is based on a misunderstanding of the fundamentals, you would need to reeducate them from the ground up and they are never willing to put the work in.
In science perpetual motion machines are always popular. There must be some psychological reason why so many people are convinced they can break the laws of physics.
We have a perfect example in Terry, who is very interested in law and loves to quote bits of it, but also very evidently lacks a real education on the subject, and says nonsensical things as a result.
Anyway, it's nice to discuss these ideas, but I think it's good to keep a certain degree of humility on subjects where I are not an expert.
Some people love to opine about other peoples knowledge on a subject, that they themselves know absolutely nothing about. Therefore, letting everyone know how foolish they really are.
Mar 26th, 2018 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Schrodinger-Candidate:
Mar 26th, 2018 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/lula-brazil-schrodinger-candidate-180325083628432.html
@DemonT. I don't think you can be so segregating about who is qualified and who is not, on any subject. Truth and Understanding are found or rather exist eternally before language or words can make them evident for our ears. Words serve truth and fact, not the other way around. Language “assists” the communication of truth's exhibition. Before the validity or worth of “words, speaking and reading” can be affirmed, “interpretation” is what happens when you use language. Interpretation comes first before what is actually uttered, and it is what precedes what we wish to talk about. That means communicating the truth, and thus it's verification there of must pass through interpretation first. So the proper order would be 1) Physical truth, 2) Intent, 3) Interpretation, 4) Language and Vocabulary. If the first three aren't in agreement before the uttering of the fourth, this one is ultimately meaningless. So this is how transference of truth happens, the fact, event or truth wanting to be communicated being “1”, between person A, and person B: A,1-2-3-4 mouth/ear 4-3-2-1,B.
Mar 26th, 2018 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What this physiological construct of logic is saying, is that if someone says something wrongly, or uses the wrong words; he is more than likely misscommunicating what he means to say, he can't be “wrong” about what he means to say, he's only saying it wrongly, if he is sincerely wanting to communicate what he saw, or what he must relay. If he is off, it behooves us to point it out. That means if anyone says “oh, shut up! you don't know what you are talking about”, or hastily and rudely says “you're wrong”, while the person is still intending to communicate something they feel is clear in their minds, the failure occurs in the listener for not saying first “wait, I don't see how that makes sense” or rectifies his interpretation any way he needs to.
One of my favorite “truisms” is that: Anybody in the world can understand anything anybody else does, so as long as it is explained and understood.
@PE & DT
Mar 26th, 2018 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re DT's ”I don't know about Jack, but I can't say I have any more education in politics or 'international diplomacy' than you (PE)”.....
I did not take any graduate courses in political science, neither did I study it, but am a keen observer of the daily political facts, especially in Brazil, where events are extremely dynamic, and usually don't happen for the right reasons ; the reasons behind the facts are either sorely obvious right from the start, and disgusting, or eventually leak out, and that's when hopefully, the people with a better comprehension of the facts realize the lies and the cover-ups.
When once watches what happens for example, in Brazil's highest court (STF), of late it has become relatively to easy to see the writing on the wall...some judges are notoriously partial, trampling on laws they themselves approved a couple of years earlier, because now it suits 'their' current political view.
During my career, I was trained to be practical, to understand the problem before trying to find a solution. That approach has served me well, and probably explains why I'm not turned on by philosophical matters.
One thing you said DT, and which is very true (IMO), “The advantage to not having a formal education is that coming into a subject from a different direction can give you new insights”.
A person who has been through a long formal education tends to want to do everything by the book, and is not prepared to look outside the box...and this “can” limit one's scope, professionally. People who don't have the path already set out for them, are usually prepared to risk more, as there isn't much to lose...see examples of that everyday, with some extraordinary success stories.
Also agree that “it's good to keep a certain degree of humility on subjects where one is not an expert”...it's a shame when that just flies straight over some people's heads.
Just fyi, the TRF-4 (appellate court) has just denied all Lula's appeals...
@PE
Mar 26th, 2018 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That wasn't what I meant at all. I agree the thought or idea must come first, and then it is put into words, often imperfectly, and then must be interpreted by a listener, also imperfectly. So yeah, we should all do our best to understand, and ask for clarification if an idea does not make sense to us.
But the idea itself can still be right or wrong, and no amount of explanations or different words will change that. You don't have to be qualified to have good ideas, and be right about something, but it does help.
And I'm afraid I don't agree with your 'truism'. Some things are hard to understand, and not everyone can do it. A trivial example is children; at a young age there are things they just don't 'get', and it is useless, even cruel to try and explain them. As they grow up, they just naturally understand them without being taught.
This video has some classical examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRF27F2bn-A
As for adults, how many people really understand quantum physics or general relativity? You can read a book to get some idea of it, but the mathematics is far beyond most people's ability.
Anything can be explained to anyone DT, it may take longer, it may require filling in with a lot more base or background knowledge, but it is. Children are not “a good example” they are simply us still in need of a lot more maturing, with children it is not a matter only of accumulating knowledge, there is the aspect of it making sense to someone of whom not much responsibility is expected nor understood for its reasons yet.
Mar 26th, 2018 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a cute video by the way!! Thanks for that. I often like looking at such videos to learn more about teaching kids
@PE
Mar 26th, 2018 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Anything can be explained to anyone, it may take longer, it may require filling in with a lot more base or background knowledge”...
Don't agree. It will depend on the sophistication of the argument being accompanied by the listeners level of formal education...in other words, sometimes you soon realize that what you are trying to explain is simply above someone's capacity to grasp...so short of sending that person back to school to learn sometthing they never did, they won't really understand it. And, as far as going back to school (“to fill in with a lot more background knowledge”) is concerned, it might be a solution if time weren't an obstacle.
Just a very simple and basic example. Had a few combo-lock suitcases which were taking up space, so I gave them to one of condominium employees....he was extremely pleased,
but after trying to explain to him how to set the locks with a code, I realized it was just useless. Opened the suitcases, removed the old code, set the new one, showed him how to use the outside dial to open the bag (several times), until I could see he was becoming really frustrated, to the point of not wanting them...I even translated the original instructions for him...In the end he settled with using only the key.
Like trying to explain some theory in nuclear physics to me...as far as I'm concerned, you might as well be speaking Greek.
PE, I said children are a trivial example, because they are people too, and it is obviously not true of them. If you exclude children and adults with learning difficulties then it's more plausible, but not provable either way. If you can't get the person to understand, then maybe you just didn't explain well enough. Or if you can, then maybe there is some other person out there that you could not explain it to.
Mar 26th, 2018 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My experience is that lack of interest in the subject and not wanting to understand are more often obstacles to understanding - it's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people react with horror at the idea of studying maths or science - but lack of education or general intelligence are still limiting factors for some people.
When I was at university I did a course on maths education out of curiosity, and it included the concepts in the video and a lot more. There are several common ways that children can misunderstand some concept in maths that will prevent them from progressing later, so good teachers need to know about these, and different ways to explain things so as many children as possible can understand them. As with all subjects, the smartest people often make the worst teachers, because they understand things so easily they have no idea how to help others who don't. Those who struggled a little themselves will have a better idea of what the kids are thinking, and what made an idea click for them.
@JB
The mathematician Ramanujan is an example of someone lacking in formal education who had amazing creativity and came up with a lot of new results. That's very rare in maths, but maybe it's a little more common in other subjects?
RE nuclear physics, want me to explain some? ;)
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Mar 26th, 2018 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Like trying to explain some theory in nuclear physics to me...as far as I'm concerned, you might as well be speaking Greek.”
I guess we all have our limitations, I shouldn’t be surprised that yours is so low.
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” Albert Einstein
Now here is the perfect challenge for you, Patrick. Terry believes that the worth of anything lies exactly in who said it, that if two sources disagree there is no other way to decide between them than picking the most learned and respected and eminent. If you can convince him he's wrong, then I'll be a little closer to believing that you are right.
Mar 26th, 2018 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Terry Liar Hill
Go on then, explain some nuclear physics.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 26th, 2018 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When you bear your burden, like prove your assertion “Terry Liar Hill”. Otherwise, your the only one thats revealed as a liar
“AN ASSERTION IS A STATEMENT OFFERED AS A CONCLUSION WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SINCE AN ARGUMENT IS DEFINED AS A LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREMISE AND CONCLUSION, A SIMPLE ASSERTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
Which means complying with the most elementary requirement of presenting an argument, but, regardless don’t get to make demands on anybody. Stick to what you do best toadying.
Nuclear physics, Terry; put up or shut up. And you better make sure it's understandable by a six year old, too.
Mar 26th, 2018 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 27th, 2018 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Toadying so predictable, and still can’t make an argument and BS’s about a bogus degree. You and JB are birds of a feather.
Hey Terry, it's okay, we all have our limitations. I'm not remotely surprised that yours is so low.
Mar 27th, 2018 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1@Patrick
See, Terry is the perfect counterexample, you can't explain ANYTHING to him. I'd love to see you try though...
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 27th, 2018 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0After this many hours, this the best you can come up with? Thus, your plagiarism confirms your lack of originality.
This many hours? It was nighttime here, you nitwit, I was in bed asleep. Have you never heard of time zones?
Mar 27th, 2018 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0And all your bluster doesn't hide the fact you still haven't even tried to explain anything. The only conclusion is that you can't, because you don't understand it yourself.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 27th, 2018 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only conclusion is. “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”― Oscar Wilde
“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation” Herman Melville
“Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those who we cannot resemble” Samuel Johnson
“In everything truth surpasses the imitation and copy” Marcus Tullius Cicero
@DT
Mar 27th, 2018 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“....as far as I'm concerned, you might as well be speaking Greek”
When I wrote that, I was sure Terry the Liar would butt in...and he did, with his predictable BS.
Regarding your offer (to explain nuclear physics to me), thanks but no thanks.....and again, predictably, when you challenge his 'insinuation' that he understands nuclear physics (“I guess we all have our limitations, I shouldn’t be surprised that yours is so low”), what does he do ? he comes back with the usual BS quotes....how enlightening of him, only proving once again that he 'hides' his ignorance behind quotes.
The fact he refuses to accept that either you, or me, have university degrees, stems from another fact - that he does not ....and because of this, he feels inferior and is extremely jealous, reflected by his only possible reaction : denial ; it's sad, but once a latrine cleaner, always....
He is so blind towards his own (enormous) defects that he actually has the nerve to accuse you of “plagiarism” and the “lack of originality”.....hilarious ; However ridiculous and childish the Liar's posts are, they are interesting from the point of view of seeing how a sick mind works...or doesn't work. With Terry, it's always about Terry the Liar..
Seems that the quote “It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation” (Herman Melville), fits the Liar down to a 't'.....he is never original, and does indeed succeed in imitating his idols...
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Mar 27th, 2018 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The fact he refuses to accept that either you, or me, have university degrees”
Neither of you bozos can present a coherent argument. Which has only three possible conclusions. 1.You are the first post grads that I have met that can’t present a proper argument. 2.You are able too, but refuse too, as your argument doesn’t hold up. 3. Your both grads, from the worst online papering mill institutions in world.
The proof of which is present posting. You again fail to meet your burden of proof, which means you can’t. So you have proved to all and sundry who the only liar here is. Further, aggrieving your multitude of faults by yet again libelling me.
“Latrine cleaner” a sub section of the pioneer corp, which is an army unit. I have never served in army, whereas you have.
So you’re the one who was more likely to have fitted the job description than myself. Remember, I was a cold war warrior not a-want-to-be like you.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
“The fact he refuses to accept that either you, or me, have university degrees”
Neither of you bozos can present a coherent argument. Which has only three possible conclusions. 1.You are the first post grads that I have met that can’t present a proper argument. 2.You are able too, but refuse too, as your argument doesn’t hold up. 3. Your both grads, from the worst online papering mill institutions in world.
The proof of which is present posting. You again fail to meet your burden of proof, which means you can’t. So you have proved to all and sundry who the only liar here is. Further, aggrieving your multitude of faults by yet again libelling me.
“Latrine cleaner” a sub section of the pioneer corp, which is an army unit. I have never served in army, whereas you have.
So you’re the one who was more likely to have fitted the job description than myself. Remember, I was a cold war warrior not a-want-to-be like you.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/03/20/lula-begins-tour-of-south-braz
@JB
Mar 27th, 2018 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Regarding your offer (to explain nuclear physics to me), thanks but no thanks“
I thought not. You probably could understand a great deal if you wanted, but what's the point if you're not interested? That's why I said lack of interest is a bigger problem than lack of education. Many subjects require that you work at them in order to understand, it doesn't matter how hard the teacher tries if the learner will not put the work in.
”when you challenge his 'insinuation' that he understands nuclear physics”
He can hardly risk bullshitting when he knows I might call his bluff, so all that is left is his usual tiresome bluster and repeated quotes.
I don't know if you watched the video I linked, but I suspect Terry is lacking some kind of understanding that is normally acquired with age. Imagine giving him the final test with the feather breaking the glass; he'd demand proof from the researcher that it was true, then call her a liar and storm off in a huff. ;)
Anyway, I see he is now saying that neither of us can present a coherent argument, yet in an earlier conversation with him, he claimed it is impossible to analyse an argument at all, and the only way to decide whether it was true or false was on the basis of who made it. What do you want to bet that he will continue to maintain these two mutually contradictory claims, rather than admit he was wrong about something?
Perhaps that is why he is so distressed at the idea we both have degrees; it would make us more qualified than him, and therefore by his own bullshit rules, we must be correct.
@DT
Mar 27th, 2018 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alright, I probably could understand some initial, logical concepts, but the moment you start getting into the slightly complicated matters, which require prior knowledge, I’d no longer be able to follow…
Yeah, did watch the video…very interesting and funny at the same time, watching how the kids’ logic works, and although not able to explain it as they get older, they are not fooled so easily.
Don’t think Terry would pass even the first test (2 glasses of water); he would insist the amounts of water were different…and the proof of that is because ‘he says so’. Although he refuses to accept our 'opinions', on anything, it is clear that it is other people's “opinions”, pre-selected by him, that determine what is true or false to him ; and when proved false, he’ll resort to calling his ignorance a ‘mistake of fact’.
His incapacity to accept perfectly normal things as the truth, such as having a degree, is a sign of a disturbed mind…and even then, if you shoved a photo of them in his face, he would claim they are false, while insisting ‘his’ mug’s image wasn’t manipulated, or that it proves anything more than it's just a mug with something written on it...bloody joke.
As to presenting a coherent argument, is the duplicated text in his above post, supposed to be the product of a coherent mind ?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 27th, 2018 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“He claimed it is impossible to analyse an argument at all. Oh please show us this exciting piece of information, refresh me, because I have never said such a thing. It is you that claimed it couldn’t be done.
He is so distressed at the idea we both have degrees” I’m not so affected, what I’ve stated is it’s simply unbelievable your claims. Considering, that the production of essays are often predicated on conflicting ideas and are part and parcel of most fields. Yet you appear to have no aptitudes, which leads to me to the conclusion that you have had no such prior experiences.
“That he understands nuclear physics” I’m certainly familiar with the concepts, as all technical staff were. In case, for example, we were sent out to secure and monitor a V bomber and its contents, in the event of a crash.
@The Liar Terry
Mar 27th, 2018 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Oh please show us this exciting piece of information, refresh me, because I have never said such a thing.”
Here you go, Chronic Liar:
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/11/30/ara-san-juan-since-falklands-conflict-buenos-aires-and-london-have-never-been-closer/comments#comment478411
I said: “You don't know how to evaluate an argument, do you? In fact, I don't think you understand that it's possible. You think the only way to judge between competing opinions is to see who is the most 'expert' of the people making them.”
And you replied: “Well, sunshine thats the way its done in the real world,” thus clearly indicating your agreement.
As for essays, shows what you know. I didn't have to write a single one to get my degree, something I was very happy about at the time. I did however have to prove things in mathematics in order to pass my exams, and my lecturers all found my proofs perfectly coherent and logical.
RE nuclear physics, if you were technical staff then you would have learned how to deal safely with the nuclear material you might come in contact with, but not the details of the theory, so it's a good thing you didn't try explaining it.
Now I feel I have to ask you this: if I pour some water from a short, wide glass into a tall, thin one, does the volume stay the same?
@JB
I think it is interesting that none of the children can really explain their answers, whether they got it right or wrong. It is something that at a certain age they understand instinctively, and without that understanding it's almost impossible to explain it.
In order to make logical and convincing arguments, we rely on other people having that same kind of basic understanding, and when they don't, as with Terry, we get nowhere.
As for the physics, you must have learned some in school, right? Since you went to an international school, did you do O and A levels like people in England?
@DT
Mar 27th, 2018 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again you've proved Terry the Liar can't even remember what said a few days ago...sounds like senility creeping up on him, reason why he can't help contradicting himself.
But why does he think having a degree is “unbelievable” ? (his own words)...an interesting question...the most probable answer is because he was incapable of getting one...and doesn't like it when he comes across someone who did....thus his obvious inferiority complex...it oozes through every one of his words.
Now, his claim, “Remember, I was a cold war warrior not a-want-to-be like you”, can only be a joke...even though he obviously doesn't have a sense of humour....the only place he was ever a warrior was when he was fighting with the toilets…
His claim ”I’m certainly familiar with the concepts (of nuclear physics)” is another joke….the only thing he might have learned about physics, after years of observation, is Newton’s Law of Gravity, while patiently waiting around to clean the latrines after the turds dropped into them…using his toothbrush to scrub the latrines probably didn’t do his health any good…
DT, I don't thinks it's very fair that you ask Numb nuts to solve the glass and water problem...it's way beyond his brain grade.
Yep, studied physics (scraped through, only just), and the “O” levels I took were from Oxford and Cambridge. As the school only went up to the “O” levels, I had to transfer to the Brazilian system to go through the equivalent of “A” levels (required for university).
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Mar 27th, 2018 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
“His’ mug’s image wasn’t manipulated, or that it proves anything more than it's just a mug with something written on it”
Please note your bosom buddies’ acceptance as genuine.
DT “The second picture with the mug in your hand is better, although someone with more experience could still edit it.”
You still don’t get it. It’s evidentiary proof, it has to be an unadulterated image, otherwise it’s no longer genuine. If it’s been manipulated it is then worthless. But, regardless thanks for your admission that it’s the real McCoy. So you are estopped from later claiming a contrary opinion.
http://en.mercopress.com/2018/03/13/brazil-s-speaker-of-the-lower-house-also-wants-to-run-for-the-presidency/comments#comment485387
Demonstrator the slavish follower
You claimed I didn’t know how to evaluate an argument and I disagreed. Then you complained about my use of expert opinions. I responded as you as stated. Then you attempt to manufacture that I have stated that is the only way, which false. As I have frequently, given alternatives as you well know. I frequently have used the Stanford definition of thoughts as true of false in absolute sense to make an evaluation. That the people who refuse their obligations in the use of onuses, an adverse inference can be drawn as to their truth.
“But not the details of the theory.” Is simply your uninformed assumption. Which is the sophism which you constantly attempt, which is to try fluff off your so called opinion as fact.
“Now I feel I have to ask..” You may well do, but the answer is no. You don’t get to dictate to others, or use extraneous matters, in attempt to monopolise the thread with off-topic subject matters.
At least Brazil has the POTENTIAL to become a great country: REF:
Mar 28th, 2018 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.otempo.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.1589116.1522098943!image/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/main-charges-resize_620/image.JPG
@DT
Mar 28th, 2018 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don’t know why the Liar addressed his post to all he did…he’s lost it.
Anyway, interesting to see how he twists what one says to suit his sick narrative…for ex., in my 6th post above (4th parag), I wrote, referring to the Liar: “…while insisting his mug’s image wasn’t manipulated..” ;
He then quotes me, as having said “His mug’s image wasn’t manipulated” ; he conveniently omits part of the sentence, to try to twist what I said into sounding as if I agreed with him…to, at some future point, refer to it as CONCLUSIVE PROOF that he was right…but all he seems to have managed is to get his knickers in a twist and contradict himself.
When he writes “You don’t get to dictate to others, in attempt to monopoliZe the thread with off-topic subject matters”, he doesn’t realize he has just described himself.
Now, to get back to an “off-topic” but interesting “subject matter” : although Good Friday is still two days away, only 28 out of 594 Congressmen showed up for work today…less than 5%....I mean, they NEED two extra days off, before the holiday. Sure sign that the other 95% couldn’t give a damn about Brazil. And although elections are still 5 months away, many are already busy scurrying around to see whether it will be beneficial for them to switch parties (‘switch’ window ends 06 April), while projects of the utmost importance to Brazil are put on the back burner.
Just imagine if in the UK, members of the two main parties, were to change sides before every election….what message would that send to the public ?
A ripe time to give up any leftovers of HOPE:
Mar 28th, 2018 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://i2.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/videntechargeonline.jpg?resize=325%2C420&ssl=1
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Mar 28th, 2018 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As for essays, shows what you know. I didn't have to write a single one to get my degree”
Is simply unbelievable as even for a degree majoring in maths would require a minor in another subject, or something in writing as to ’breadth’. If what say is so, then it must have been a real Micky Mouse university. What I have just stated are the minimum requirements of a decent degree. But, regardless that is a clear admission you don’t know how to present an argument, and are too conceited to even inquire. Thats why Its like arguing with a moron.
So here I was able to show a further method, as to the reason you don’t know how to properly evaluate an argument. By deducing, that is by using deductive logic.
Argument from authority | The Logical Place
The Argument from Authority is often misunderstood to be a fallacy in all cases, when this is not necessarily so. The argument becomes a fallacy only when used deductively, or where there is insufficient inductive strength to support the conclusion of the argument. … The fallacy is compounded when the source is not an authority on the relevant subject matter. This is known as Argument from false or misleading authority. … “THE ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY IS SOMETIMES MISTAKENLY CONFUSED WITH THE CITATION OF REFERENCES, WHEN DONE TO PROVIDE PUBLISHED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE POINT THE ADVOCATE IS TRYING TO MAKE. IN THESE CASES, THE ADVOCATE IS NOT JUST APPEALING TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE AUTHOR, BUT PROVIDING THE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE SO THAT READERS CAN CHECK THE EVIDENCE THEMSELVES IF THEY WISH. SUCH CITATIONS OF EVIDENCE ARE NOT ONLY ACCEPTABLE REASONING, BUT ARE NECESSARY TO AVOID PLAGIARISM.”
https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/argument-from-authority/
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
“To try to twist what I said into sounding as if I agreed with him” Far from it, I simply gave you a heads up on your buddies’ acquiescence on the authenticity issue.
At least, the situation is “explanable”! REF:
Mar 28th, 2018 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://i0.wp.com/blogdoaftm.web2419.uni5.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1916-1024x768.jpg
@JB
Mar 28th, 2018 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RE Terry, it's an ego defence mechanism. He denies it now, but back then he didn't deny I was right about him. If you read the rest of that thread he continues to claim that is the only way to evaluate an argument even after I gave him evidence it wasn't, but being Terry he wouldn't admit he was wrong. However, he did realise the evidence was completely against him, so now that some time has passed to make it less obvious, he changes his mind, and starts pretending he always believed what he says now. I'm pretty sure he also convinces himself that he's telling the truth, however obvious it is when he's not. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't such a jerk about it.
As for the degrees, same thing. They only way he can maintain his own self image is to believe that we are both stupid and wrong, but having degrees contradicts that, so he has to disbelieve us or else admit that he has been acting like an idiot.
And speaking of omitting part of the sentence, I asked him: “if I pour some water from a short, wide glass into a tall, thin one, does the volume stay the same?”
His reply: “...the answer is no.”
QED
Back on topic, that's damn lazy. No one in our Brazil office was taking the day off. Do congressmen get 100 days' holiday a year or what?
“Just imagine if in the UK, members of the two main parties, were to change sides before every election….what message would that send to the public ?”
That ideology is irrelevant and they should vote based on personality, ie, for Lula.
@The Liar
Don't be so ethnocentric. We don't do majors and minors in the UK, you pick a subject before you start, usually just one. I chose to do a combined degree in Maths and Physics, but neither subject required essays.
And the rest is your usual nonsense, I can't be bothered to read it since you can't be bothered to either listen or learn. It's very much the same as arguing with a child, except that the child will grow up and understand one day.
@Terry “Liar” Hill, aka, Brain-less moron.
Mar 28th, 2018 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's right Numb nuts, for someone who does not have a degree - other than a Master's degree in cleaning latrines - you profess to know a lot about how the higher education system works.....you are the type of idiot who asks the question and then aswers it himself, as if anything someone else might have to say would have to be wrong.....stop trying to “dictate to others, in attempt to monopoliZe the thread”. No use trying to explain away your lies, or your 'mistakes of facts'.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Mar 28th, 2018 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“but back then he didn't deny I was right about him”
What you’re trying to claim is in evaluating an argument one is restricted solely to the views of experts. Which is not what I have claimed. Why would I, who knows of several ways of evaluating, unduly restrict myself. You’re the only one who has claimed an unsupported assertion cannot validated as untruthful, your exact word was it is ‘unproven’. While I showed an adverse assumption could correctly be made. But then, you know sweet Fanny Adam about written arguments as you’ve already stated, you had never written an essay that was judged.
“His reply: “...the answer is no.” Can’t find where this titbit supposedly is. As you don’t support your assertion I wont be taking your word for it.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Your obsessed with latrines, I guess thats the highest order your mind can reach. I just love it when at full-stretch you demonstrate how really smart, you aren’t.
@JB:
Mar 28th, 2018 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Sure sign that the other 95% couldn’t give a damn about Brazil”:
CAN'T AFFORD TO MISS:
https://i0.wp.com/blogdoaftm.web2419.uni5.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1839-1-820x615.jpg
@DT
Mar 28th, 2018 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0IF he had attempted to answer that nasty, trick question, I agree he would undoubtedly have replied 'NO'....and he “Can’t find where this titbit supposedly is”....poor Terry, doesn't even recognize when someone is taking the piss out of him.
But, if you'd asked him about the water level in the two latrines, he might have replied correctly.
Why don't we ask him to show us the image of the mug he was presented with for 10 years perfect attendance in the latrines ? but ok, enough time, and space, wasted on him.
Congress closes before Christmas and returns to work.. well, not exactly 'work', but to Brasilia, beginning February. The politicians take about a week over Carnival (this year, mid-Feb)...after all, after having worked so hard for 10 days after the end-of-year recess, they need another rest. They have already taken off for Easter...they will take July off, and on just about every national holiday, they anticipate it by two or three days, to allow them to get back home...adds up to about 90 days...and that's not counting when they simply do not show for the Congressional sessions.....not that their absence makes much difference.
@TH
Mar 28th, 2018 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why would I, who knows of several ways of evaluating, unduly restrict myself.”
Because until I told you, you didn't know of any other ways of evaluating arguments, and you didn't believe me when I told you. Now you pretend you've always known, although you still don't know any *correct* ways. You can't even see which bit of your post I quoted, although you wrote it today. I've wasted enough time on your idiocy.
@JB
Not sure your parliament is all that much worse than ours when it comes to holidays. The Christmas holiday is in your summer and our MPs get a summer recess of about 7 weeks, plus a lot of other holidays.
They are usually there for important debates, but not the minor ones. AFAIK there aren't even enough seats when they all turn up at once. The Lords and MEPs are even worse, famous for signing in just to claim their generous expenses and then leaving again. Farage was a particular offender, and of course did nothing useful when he was present since he only wanted to undermine the EU.
And naturally Terry knows nothing about higher education, although he claims to have lived in Britain. Seems pretty suspicious actually, I'm sure everyone here knows how university works. Do you have these majors and minors in Brazil or is it more like Britain?
@JB:
Mar 28th, 2018 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF:“Congress closes ................................not that their absence makes much difference”:
Speaking about the “Most EFFICIENT and EFFECTIVE Working of the Congress & the rest of the Crooks”:
https://i0.wp.com/blogdoaftm.web2419.uni5.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1875-820x615.jpg
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Mar 29th, 2018 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Naturally Terry knows nothing about higher education” Another assumption bites the dust, as I’m very familiar with the requirements of the University of Toronto, for a four year honours major in history, with a minor in English literature.
“Because until I told you, you didn't know of any other ways of evaluating arguments”
Get over yourself you’ve told me jack squat, you are person who has never submitted an essay or been trained in how to present an argument. So what could you possibly tell me about the subject that I don’t already know. You can’t even comply with obligatory onuses. Give yourself a shake, you may be fool but it’s not to your advantage to advertise the fact. So keep working that bilge pump and don’t prove anything you say. At the end of the day you’ve achieved great big nothing. As I don’t have to refute anything that you claim, that is unproven.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
If you’re claiming you’ve received a higher education, I’d ask for my money back bub, because you were robbed. The highest intellectual point you’ve reached is your obsession with urinals. You should try and keep your head out the gutter, and strive to rise above your obvious limitations.
REF: Supporters x Protesters:
Mar 29th, 2018 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://dia.portalodia.com/media/editor/charge1454153141.jpg
@ :o))
Mar 29th, 2018 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lol, poor Lula.
@Terry the Dimwit
Your wife's degree, not yours; I daresay we'd have been able to have a sensible conversation with *her*.
You shouldn't assume all degrees and all universities are the same. Science degrees are very different to arts ones, and UK universities work differently to those in North America. You seem to be stuck on essays, but all academic degrees require logical thinking and knowledge of how to make an argument. University maths is very different to school maths, it's not about moving numbers around but about proving theorems. So you should realise I actually had to learn and pass exams in formal logic, and that is why your egregious misunderstandings of it are so obvious and irritating to me.
Also, re your photograph, why are you claiming I said it was genuine, and then quoting me saying the opposite, that it could still be faked? Do you think words mean the opposite of what they say?
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 29th, 2018 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Your wife's degree” my wife has two degrees from Brazil. She attended classes at the U of T but never completed her degree there.
DT “The second picture with the mug in your hand is better, although someone with more experience could still edit it.”
Is your clear admission of acceptance. So unless you can wrap your assertions up in the necessary proofs. Then all you’ve presented is your opinion which is not a valid argument.
@Crazy Terry
Mar 29th, 2018 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0You told me your wife had a history degree. You also told me you'd had two wives, but it's not that relevant. If you want to know how degrees work in the UK, or what I had to study, you can just ask me instead of wrongly assuming you know everything already.
And as for your mug, can't you read? Actually, why am I even asking, of course you can't. The fact that someone could have edited the picture means it is NOT good enough evidence. If I want to accept it as genuine then I will say so, and by the way, even if I did it would just be my unsupported opinion, which I certainly could change later if there was new evidence. Your idea that it is wrong to change your mind explains a lot of your bad attitude when we prove you wrong. It is an essential principle of all science that the evidence determines what is true or false. No matter how attached you are to a theory, it must be altered or given up altogether if the evidence does not support it.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 29th, 2018 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Academic degrees require logical thinking and knowledge of how to make an argument.” It begs the question as you never comply with the necessary proofs.
My first wife also had a history degree and I represented her in an academic appeal on the universities’ prior representation that she had sufficiency of breadth if she took a certain course, and later claimed she didn’t. She won that one. On another occasion she was being deliberately down graded by a marxist prof with whom she didn’t agree. Once I launched an inquiry it turns out, not only did the wife have better qualifications on the subject. The prof was teaching a subject outside her area of expertise. Of course her marks followed a much fairer representation of her work after that.
“Your idea that it is wrong to change your mind” I’m not, your bound by the doctrine of fairness which dictates you will be held by what you first claim regardless of whether it is true or not. “Speaking out of both sides of your mouth”. So it is impossible for you to claim “we prove you wrong.” “Science” has absolutely no bearing on issues here that are not germane to that field.
Formal logic, also has no bearing on compliance of proof here. “Or what I had to study, you can just ask” I couldn’t be less interested, in your off-topic discourses. I’m interested in following the proper rules of presenting an argument which you don’t do. So when you don’t conform to basic requirements, I’m not interested in your blah, blah. As it then makes what you say both, of no consequence and immaterial. “It must be altered or given up altogether” Another claim without meeting your burden, so you can go and fly your proverbial kite.
SOMEBODY HOPEFUL IN BRAZILIAN POLITICS:
Mar 29th, 2018 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/marielle-franco-represented-something-hopeful-in-brazilian-politics-is-that-why-she-was-killed-1.3434162
@Terry
Mar 29th, 2018 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't have an academic degree, you've picked up a few bits of information from I-don't-know-where, which you don't understand. I'm not doing things the way you expect and demand simply because your expectations are wrong. I'm disagreeing with your arguments because they are wrong.
And of course formal logic has a bearing on proof! It's what underpins the whole idea. You need to educate yourself, this would be a good start:
http://web.utk.edu/~nolt/courses/logic.html (There will be a quiz.)
This will do as an introduction to the scientific method:
www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
You say you're interested in following the proper rules of presenting an argument, so why don't you learn what they are and stop embarrassing yourself?
@ :o))
Very interesting article, thanks.
“The judge’s comments betray the prejudice many Brazilians still hold against favela residents. It also shows the chronic inability among swathes of the Brazilian right to distinguish between human-rights campaigners who denounce endemic police violence against favela residents, and the drug gangs who operate among them. In their perverted logic, to protest against police excesses is to be the friend of criminals.”
I hadn't realised it was a judge that started the rumour that she was elected with help from a drug gang, that makes it seem considerably worse. At least the press do appear to be doing their job in disproving that. But confusing police brutality with effective law enforcement is a bigger problem.
I hadn't heard the theory that it could be a message to Temer before, either. Scary:
“One theory is that Marielle’s death was a warning to the federal government from those with most to lose from any anti-corruption drive: this is our town and here we call the shots. Mess with us and things will get ugly.”
@DT:
Mar 29th, 2018 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Very interesting article, thanks”:
The one below is even MORE interesting!
https://i0.wp.com/blogdoaftm.web2419.uni5.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/1879-1024x768.jpg
It's really amazing [a pity, actually] that too many people STILL take the Brazilian Politics, Political Parties, AND the Political [although CORRUPT] Leaders; SERIOUSLY!
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 29th, 2018 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have made two assertions without proof. I have learnt how to present an argument, it is you who refuses the necessary requirement, which makes you a de facto cheat. So there is no onus on me to do anything as you haven’t met your burden, other than to say BS. So on your bike, I’ll stick with the program and resist your attempts to reinvent the wheel to your own liking.
“AN ASSERTION IS A STATEMENT OFFERED AS A CONCLUSION WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SINCE AN ARGUMENT IS DEFINED AS A LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREMISE AND CONCLUSION, A SIMPLE ASSERTION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
@DT
Mar 29th, 2018 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TH asks :“Why would I, who knows of several ways of evaluating, unduly restrict myself”? Guess I'll have to tell him – 1st, he's incapable of evaluating anything, so much so he has to resort to quotes to defend his BS ; 2nd, that exactly is his restriction, and it’s not voluntary.
TH says : “I’m very familiar with the requirements of the University of Toronto”
Have you noticed how carefully he words his claim ? “I’m familiar with..”; so what ? I’m “familiar” with lots of subjects, yet I don’t profess to be an expert in them ; instead of lying outright, he words his claim with the intention to misguide, to later be able to claim “I never said I graduated from the U of T”.
TH says : “If you’re claiming you’ve received a higher education, I’d ask for my money back bub, because you were robbed”.
For my main degree, I graduated from Brazil’s number one university (USP), which was free…so I wasn’t robbed. Sorry to disappoint you Numb nuts.
I’m not obsessed with latrines, but I have to admire 'his' patriotic dedication to them.
TH claims : “my wife has two degrees from Brazil. She attended classes at the U of T but never completed her degree there”…..
He's just trying to take credit for his wife’s alleged achievements, and was careful enough to add “but never completed her degree there” in order to not compromise himself…or her ; He obviously also thinks his wife is superior to everyone else, and that no one else could possibly have a degree. It’s so easy to see through his lies.
“Do you have these majors and minors in Brazil or is it more like Britain?”
In Bzl (when I did Univ), each year you had a defined nbr of obligatory subjects; you could choose which ones to take (respecting a minimum nbr), i.e., leaving one or two for later, but to move on (to the next year), you had to complete the previous cycle. In that way, some students, for lack of time, took up to 7 or 8 years (or more) to graduate.
In fact, one of my great-uncles taught at the U of T.
@:o))
Mar 29th, 2018 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't get it. Are merenda and metro references to some scandal or something?
@Terry
Try reading the link I gave you, idiot. It talks about Philosophy but it is relevant to all kinds of reasoning:
“Logic is the study of reasoning. Reasoning is the process by which we use evidence to judge try to discover or persuade others of the truth. Reasoning is verbally expressed in arguments.”
Or this one:
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-is-logic-important-250315
Anyway, I ran out of space before:
Why should you ask me about my degree? Because you've been making a fool of yourself with your incorrect assumptions like majors and minors. If it was really off-topic, you wouldn't mentioned it at all.
As for your 'doctrine of fairness', do you mean this:
“The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.”
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness+Doctrine
I'm pretty sure I'm not bound by that. ;)
@JB
I did notice his careful wording, and I don't believe he could complete a degree anyway, for exactly the reason he stated. You need to be able to present an argument, not the incoherent drivel and irrelevant quotes that Terry comes out with. It's really funny how many of the things he says are true - of HIM. Perhaps he knows the truth subconsciously but can't admit it to himself.
It sounds like in Brazil you can just choose to do courses on anything. Surely you have to pick one subject to focus on at some point? And wow, no one here takes 7 or 8 years because the government won't pay for it, and besides you'd be thrown out long before that. Why is it so hard to get it done in the normal time, anyway?
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Mar 29th, 2018 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the chief wing-nut emerges to make various assertions, again without proof. As thoughts true or false in an absolute sense. Since your failure to provide the necessary requirement. It must be false because it doesn’t meet the criteria for truth, so an adverse inference by a fortior can be made. So take a hike, because your busted.
Terry, you sound like a child repeating phrases they've heard but don't understand. None of that was even close to a logical argument.
Mar 29th, 2018 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you trying to claim the USP does charge fees just because Jack said the opposite? You're an idiot.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendag
Mar 29th, 2018 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“With your incorrect assumptions like majors and minors” No its not’ its based on (to best of my knowledge) how the US and Canada do things. My only knowledge of British universities is the requirement for taking an external LLB at the University of London.
Your 'doctrine of fairness', do you mean this. No! The following: The fact that I have placed a reliance on your claim is a bar in law from you claiming otherwise. As its fair, as prevents a party making many claims, and switching one to another. In simple terms this allows only one kick at the can. That is a fundamental basis of contract law.
Or is your view that legal requirements are to much an unfair burden on your choices, to do exactly as you please. Which is a credo for ‘may the best cheat win’.
You can waffle on all day, it doesn’t allow you a free pass from an obligation to meet your burden of proof. Which is what you're claiming you can do. It is my contention that is horse feathers.
My what montage of unsupported opinions, without one proven fact in view, so babble on little brook.
“Are you trying to claim the USP does charge fees” No its just a figure of speech, which is obvious to any fool but you.
@TH
Mar 29th, 2018 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If my assertions about you, according to 'your' own, self-proclaimed standards, are 'without proof', so are all your's about me and DT....but you still “can't get it”, can you Numb nuts ?
@DT
Terry the “LiaR' believes he is the jury, judge and executioner...how cute of him.
”It sounds like in Brazil you can just choose to do courses on anything. Surely you have to pick one subject to focus on at some point? ”...
Perhaps I wasn't clear...For example, I'll use the Faculty of Economy of the USP. In the first year curriculum there were about 10 to 12 subjects : Mathematics (subdivided into Financial, Statistics I, Calculus I), Economy (micro & macro), Financial Administration, Personnel Administraion, Commercial Accounting, Costs Accounting, Law (mainly Labor), Social & Political Science, Philosophy, Sociology, Computer Science (athough back then still pretty superficial).. You could opt for taking at least half one year, and in the next the remainder, but only after having passed in all of them, would you go on to the 2nd year curriculum...again, with its own defined subjects (some, the same, but more advanced), for that level. Students who had to work, sometimes found it hard to attend all subjects - programmed for a specific level (for ex., 1st year curriculum) - simultaneously, so they might stretch it out over two years...An exception: If by any chance you passed all the 1st year curriculum subjects, except for Calculus I, you 'could' carry on to the 2nd year, but you needed to take, and pass, Calculus I before being able to attend Calculus II classes ; or, follow the sequential logic. Some subjects, without more advanced curriculums, did not keep you back. Some (but very few) students were doing their 10th, or even 12th year, reason why (at least officially) the University had a cap on the time, after which they would be kicked out. I studied in the morning, which usually had a heavier load than the night classes...for obvious reasons.
@Crazy Terry
Mar 29th, 2018 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That is a fundamental basis of contract law.”
Are you nuts? I don't have a contract with you and we're not in court; I'm certainly not bound by any of those rules. This is a discussion on an internet forum, rules on fairness in court cases are for the courts.
As for the universities, you are exactly confirming my point, You have no knowledge at all of British universities but you think you can tell me what I would have learned at one, and decide it must be a bad university because it doesn't fit your preconceptions. It's just another example of your foolishness and arrogance, assuming that you know everything.
“No its just a figure of speech”
You accused JB of lying (for no reason as usual), and now you're claiming that was a figure of speech? Each of your posts makes less sense than the last.
@JB
Evidently he is never going to get it. He even refused to read the links I gave him; probably afraid he might learn something..
I see now. We had core courses which were compulsory and optional ones where you could choose from a selection. It was even possible to do a course from a different department (eg, learning a foreign language), if you wanted to.
Did you study economics as an undergraduate? Can't remember if you've already told me what subject you did. Also I'm curious what Computer Science involved back then. Computers that filled a room and programming with punched cards?
I guess if you're working full time then it would be hard to get everything done in one year, it's nice that the system is flexible enough to allow for that, actually. Ours seems to be designed to make it harder for poor people to get degrees.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Mar 29th, 2018 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ‘Your' own, self-proclaimed standards, are 'without proof’” That’a absolute lie as any assertion as to ‘proof’ are accompanied by their correct citation. Unlike you and your buddy who are just winging it, and consequently are devoid of any such citation.
“Numb nuts” You’re not American or Canadian so it’s not part of your parlance. You’re just a hysterical Argentinian fascist. Your so limited you have never made a post that correctly meets the criteria of meeting your burden of proof, as your last post clearly shows.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
“I don't have a contract with you … we're not in court; I'm certainly not bound by any of those rules.” I never claimed you did or are. What I stated is you cannot claim one thing, and then when its rebutted claim its something else, as that’s fraud.
“You think you can tell me what I would have learned at one” Mea a culpa, as in North America your not allowed such a restricted curriculum.
“You accused JB of lying”. No I didn’t I simply opined on his apparent lack depth in responding to any issue.
On that occasion I further stated. “The highest intellectual point you’ve reached is your obsession with urinals”
“He even refused to read the links I gave him” Oh and where did I say this. Oh its one of your free range unsupported unrestrained porkies.
@Terry the Liar
Mar 29th, 2018 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You’re not American or Canadian...”
Attempting to insult someone by calling them Argentinian is clearly racist and/or xenophobic. Was that what you intended? Also, no one has a copyright on words. He can call you numb nuts all he wants, and I can call you porra loca.
Me: “I'm certainly not bound by any of those rules.”
Terry: “I never claimed you did or are.”
Liar. In your earlier post, you wrote: “your bound by the doctrine of fairness...”
As for the USP, you wrote: “It must be false because it doesn’t meet the criteria for truth.”
When I asked you if you really meant what Jack said was false, you said this was just a figure of speech. So which is it?
“'He even refused to read the links I gave him.'Oh and where did I say this.”
It was an inference based on your behaviour. Did you read them, then? I'm hoping you might have learned something useful.
Congrats on admitting you were wrong about the university, anyway. Please remember it next time you are inclined to accuse me of lying merely because I disagreed with you about some fact or rule of logic.
DemonTree the slavish follower aka The Appendage
Mar 29th, 2018 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentinian is clearly racist and/or xenophobic” In your opinion. If you’ll notice it’s not any less accurate than hysterical, or fascist
“your bound by the doctrine of fairness…” Suggesting one the British virtues of ‘fair play’ of course not, your anything but that.
“Which is it?” It appears to be both, one its an incredulous claim and second illustrative.
“I’m hoping you might have learned something useful.” Me too.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!