MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Obama blasts those who build walls fuelled by nationalism, sectarian hatred and economic inequality
In his final address to the United Nations General Assembly as United States President, Barack Obamae on Tuesday delivered a stinging rebuke of those who would build walls, a message aimed at foreign leaders who he said had fueled rising nationalism, sectarian hatred and economic inequality — but, unmistakably, at Donald Trump, as well. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“For the small fraction of what we spent at war in Iraq, we could support institutions so that fragile States don’t collapse in the first place; and invest in emerging economies that become markets for our goods. It's not just the right thing to do – it's the smart thing to do,” said Mr. Obama”
Sep 21st, 2016 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I weep when I think of the calibre of either of the combatants set to replace Obama.
Obama
Sep 21st, 2016 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the ungreat statesman,
did not America build a wall between the USA and Mexico in part,
Apparently yesterday, only those leaders that were willing to accept more immigrants / refugees/ migrants etc.
were allowed into the great room with the ungreat one,
well the brits did not attend neither did Germany,
rightly or wrongly he will be gone very soon,
and those who turned up will for the most part pay only lip service.
but I could be wrong.
Obama today revealed that US nuclear facilities, airports, and potable water treatment plants will remove their fences, since those walls do nothing but incite sectarian hatred and economic inequality.
Sep 21st, 2016 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This Marxist moron has done more damage to the US, and the rest of the world, than any president in US history. The sooner he's gone, the better -- provided that the ignorant voters don't elect another like him.
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0No chance.
Sep 22nd, 2016 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not with the incompetent Hillary and the ingrate Trump.
“the world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall”
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0He said this while staring at the seat of the United Kingdom.
Speaking of walls... there's a barbed wire fence I see every time I cross the frontier into Chile at Monte Aymond. Years ago, the chilenos used the survey points supplied by the British commission to determine where the frontier should be, and constructed a fence. The argies, in their inimitable unwillingness to agree to anything chileno, erected their own barbed wire fence perfectly parallel to the first fence, but just about 20 cm away from it, and it runs off to the west as far as I can see.
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He said this while staring at the seat of the United Kingdom.
Sep 23rd, 2016 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is there a wall it the seat of the UK then, ?????????
in the meantime, I hear that more and more states, starting with Texas are refusing to take any of them.
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/21/obama-blasts-those-who-build-walls-fuelled-by-nationalism-sectarian-hatred-and-economic-inequality#comment450027: More British Anti-Americanism.
Sep 24th, 2016 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 09
Sep 24th, 2016 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine and RT anti-UK-ism
@6 Capi
Sep 25th, 2016 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are actually building a wall at Calais now. Total waste of taxpayers' money.
@1 Kanye
He's probably right, but he certainly hasn't done a great job of stopping the fragile states in North Africa and the Middle East collapsing. It does seem that some of those countries were better off with their crazy dictators than the chaos and civil war that replaced them.
Worse things have happened and for worse motives.
Sep 26th, 2016 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0122 Kanye
Sep 29th, 2016 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Mr. Hill is unable to differentiate between telling a lie, and uttering a statement without positive verification to accompany it.”
For the third time I have to straighten out your attempted sophistry.
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/05/sao-paulo-police-disperse-five-days-of-demonstrations-against-removal-of-rousseff-and-calls-for-fresh-elections
“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
My dictionaries/thesauruses indicate ”opinion - belief, judgement, thought(s), school of thought, thinking, way of thinking
Which prior to that states, they're only true or false so it doesn't comply with the analogy of being unprovable as you are attempting to foist on it.
Mr Hill
Sep 29th, 2016 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have very definitely stated that Mr Bauer is lying, when all he has done is give an opinion or make a statement that he cannot prove or he chooses not to prove for personal privacy reasons.
Lie:
“a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; ”
www.dictionary.com
14 Kanye
Sep 29th, 2016 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You have very definitely stated that Mr Bauer is lying” Bingo! you've right on the money Pontiac, entirely based on my empirical knowledge of this individual, who would lie about what he ate for breakfast.
Again, that's only your opinion, not a verifiable fact.
Sep 29th, 2016 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correct?
16 Kanye
Sep 29th, 2016 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correct, but the onus is not on me to prove its untrue, it's on Jack, as he is making the assertion, Therefore, he bears the burden of proof to prove it's true.
It's sufficient for me to say its bullshit and that is where the matter ends, according to the requirements of proof.
You can't say it's “bullshit” ie: “he lied”, because there is nothing to prove that definitely.
Sep 29th, 2016 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can doubt it and say so, but it is not a statement of fact on your part, unless you prove it.
If you are asserting a definite FACT, then the onus is on you to prove that.
You are not very good at logic, are you?
18 Kanye
Sep 29th, 2016 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You can't say it's “bullshit” ie: “he lied”, because there is nothing to prove that definitely.” Yes I can and I do because I'm obeying the precepts of logic. As the burden is entirely my opponents. What you think it might be isn't worth a fig unless you can show some reliance on a rule of logic that overrides the burden of proof. You see your personal appraisal based on sophistry is simply laughable.
@19 Terence Hill
Sep 29th, 2016 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your demands that Jack Bauer prove he has a university education are a version of the red herring fallacy: introducing an irrelevant issue into the debate in order to divert it from the original question.
And yes, I know he was the one who mentioned it, but it was you who picked on it to divert the discussion.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve with all this burden of proof nonsense? You're not going to get anywhere in a debate if you refuse to believe a single thing anyone else says; you may as well be talking to yourself.
Sure there are times when asking for evidence makes sense, but only when the claim is relevant to the topic at hand and there are good reasons to doubt it.
20 DemonTree
Sep 29th, 2016 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Introducing an irrelevant issue into the debate in order to divert it from the original question.” What exactly is the original question that I am I diverting the debate from, in your humble opinion? This sounds more like personal irrelevancy that you've chimed in with.
@21 Terence Hill
Sep 29th, 2016 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looking back through the comments on that article, it appears that the pair of you started out arguing over whether a study had shown right-wingers are less intelligent on average; a question on which Jack Bauer's higher education can have no possible bearing.
22 DemonTree
Sep 29th, 2016 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A question on which Jack Bauer's higher education can have no possible bearing.”
Then I guess you'll have to ask the party that introduced the issue into thread, why he raised an issue that can have no possible bearing.
“After all, I have two University degrees and an MBA ” 70 Jack Bauer
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/09/19/malvinas-sovereignty-claim-is-standing-and-non-negotiable-anticipates-macri-in-new-york
@23 Terence Hill
Sep 29th, 2016 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't need to ask him, he said in his next comment that he mentioned it to ridicule your theory by joking about it.
But it doesn't matter why he brought it up, the point is that asking for proof of something so irrelevant, and all your comments about philosophy and logic are just distractions from the original question.
I don't think you were deliberately trying to distract from the topic, by the way. But the effect is the same nonetheless.
24 DemonTree
Sep 29th, 2016 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“He said in his next comment that he mentioned it to ridicule your theory”
What he did was to replicate what he had done in the original issue, which was to make unsubstantiated claims, (polite for lying) and you lie, and I catch you, you're fair game because you have 'opened the issue'.
T Hill
Sep 29th, 2016 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An “unsubstantiated claim” ( undetermined truth)
is different from “lying”.
26 Kanye
Sep 29th, 2016 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Unsubstantiated claim is different from lying.” Not according to ”Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). …Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true. Nor according to.“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
So if its unsubstantiated, argumentum a fortiori it must false according to this criteria.
@27 Terence Hill
Sep 29th, 2016 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am a human being, but I refuse to prove this.
Now tell me I'm lying ;)
Also, every thought must be true or false?
“This sentence is a lie.”
“Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.”
“Wine tastes good.”
T Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
So if its unsubstantiated, argumentum a fortiori it MUST (be) false according to this criteria.
Why “must” it be false?
Please explain how you draw that conclusion.
28 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I am a human being, but I refuse to prove this. Now tell me I'm lying ;)”
So you even have the conceit to believe your sophistry is original. Sorry, other idiots have attempted the same. It's considered a fallacy and is known as:
Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett
reductio ad absurdum
(also known as: reduce to absurdity)
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Example #1:
I am going into surgery tomorrow so please pray for me. If enough people pray for me, God will protect me from harm and see to it that I have a successful surgery and speedy recovery.
Explanation: We first assume the premise is true: if “enough” people prayed to God for her successful surgery and speedy recovery, then God would make it so. From this, we can deduce that God responds to popular opinion. However, if God simply granted prayers based on popularity contests, that would be both unjust and absurd. Since God cannot be unjust, then he cannot both respond to popularity and not respond to popularity, the claim is absurd, and thus false.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum
@30 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You said:
“So if its unsubstantiated, argumentum a fortiori it must false according to this criteria.”
Do you agree that my claim to be human is unsubstantiated, as I have given no evidence?
Do you agree that it is in fact true?
Then there exists a statement which is both unsubstantiated, and true, therefore your claim above must be false.
29 Kanye
Sep 30th, 2016 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Why “must” it be false?” You must be inflicted with the shortest memory in the world, already answered in post #27. What is it about: ”According to ”Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant).“ So if it's an obligation it's compulsory, so if its 'truth' is unsupported, then it follows it cannot be true. Therefore, according to philosophical logic ”Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense”. If it cannot be 'true' it must of necessity be 'false'.
31 DemonTree Already answered at post #30
@32 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have not answered at all.
Your post @30 supports my argument. Since the example statement I gave leads to absurdity, this implies that your claim is absurd, and thus false.
I have explained my very simple logic in comment 31. If my conclusion is false, then one of the steps must be too. Tell me which one it is. And in your own words please; I am quite capable of looking up the definitions of fallacies for myself should I need to.
33 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This implies that your claim is absurd, and thus false” If this was true you should have no problem in laying out the steps, thus substantiating your claim, instead of leaving it to a leap of faith. So I've already answered, as your claim is an argument reductio ad absurdum. “Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion”
@34 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That was your argument, so you may lay out your steps if you want. Quoting someone else's example of reductio ad absurdum does not prove anything about my post, so go ahead and demonstrate that it is one.
I have already given my reasoning in #31, and you have twice failed to address it.
I am really surprised that you are still trying to defend something so self-evidently untrue.
35 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have already given my reasoning in #31, and you have twice failed to address it.” But, you have failed to meet your burden of proof by providing a warrant. Whereas, my reasoning is supported by the referenced fallacy. So I've met my obligation, if what you claim is true then where is the independent verifying evidence? Self-serving opinions don't command respect, yet, alone an answer..
@36 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The very purpose of logic is to allow you to prove things without having to refer to independent verifying evidence!
Here is a simple example of a deductive argument:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This is how you prove things with logic. There is no need for outside sources or quoting some expert. How do you think those experts came to their conclusions in the first place?
37 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Where's the warrant?
@38 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From the Wikipedia article on Philosophic Burden of Proof:
“While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.”
I was making an argument based on logic, with a strictly logical proof, therefore it does not make sense to demand evidence.
And the description of a fallacy that you posted does not prove your assertion. You have to actually show that what I said is an example of this fallacy, which you have not done.
39 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your claim, doesn't wash, as it's an 'argument from ignorance', which your unable to refute. Your claim is that you'r e the owner of a truth, which has never been attested too before. Is original sophistry, but hardly convincing.
Regarding, your Wikipedia article on Philosophic Burden of Proof, it says the paragraph before your citation the following. So your attempted fraud is caught.
“Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
@40 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I did read the paragraph before the one I quoted.
I never said you had to prove my statement, which would indeed be shifting the burden of proof. I am attempting to disprove your claim using logic, which as Wikipedia states, is required to prove certain kinds of arguments.
As for me being 'the owner of a truth, which has never been attested to before', at some point this must have been the case for every truth, so what is the problem?
If you don't understand the basic principles of logical reasoning, then I don't think we are going to get much further.
41 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since the issues on these threads are more germane to the 'proofs' of the fields of philosophy or law. The nuances of whether something has any significance in inductive or deductive logic, seems irrelevant in the extreme. As to “At some point this must have been the case for every truth.” But this topic has been specific to who bears the onus. “If you don't understand the basic principles of logical reasoning” but, it is digression as you have attempted to hijack the subject from the original issue.
@42 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure, that is true of the usual issues on these threads. But your claim is a logical one, since you stated that 'all statements for which no evidence is given are false'. This is something which cannot be proved empirically but can be easily disproved with logic.
And besides that, no evidence is useful unless you are able to reason with it, which requires the use of logic.
43 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But your claim is a logical one, since you stated that 'all statements for which no evidence is given are false.' What I stated was that: “So if it's an obligation, it's compulsory, so if its 'truth' is unsupported, then it follows it cannot be true. Therefore, according to philosophical logic ”Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense”. If it cannot be 'true' it must of necessity be 'false”.
But in its 'absolute sense' logic doesn't have any obligational claim of inconvertible truth. So what is the relevance vis-à-vis as to whom bears the onus as to assertions?
@44 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is all completely wrong from start to finish.
It being the obligation of one person to prove something does not make it compulsory. It just means it is not necessary for anyone else to disprove it. It means a statement may be disregarded, not that it is false.
“so if its 'truth' is unsupported, then it follows it cannot be true”
This does not logically follow, since it is possible to make a true statement but not support it. A statement being unsupported does not imply anything about it's truth value.
“Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense,” is also untrue, since statements can be contradictory, nonsensical, or subjective.
So your conclusion does not follow and is in fact false.
45 DemonTree
Sep 30th, 2016 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That is all completely wrong from start to finish …It being the obligation of one person to prove something does not make it compulsory” I'm afraid the dictionary definition is not so charitable.
obligation noun an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment:
compulsory, a. and n. 1. a.A.1.a Depending on or produced by compulsion; compelled, forced, enforced, OBLIGATORY.
OED v4.0.app
“Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense,” is also untrue,“ Not according to: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; States of Affairs; First published Tue Mar 27, 2012
plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
”So your conclusion does not follow and is in fact false.” What an incredibly huge amount of missteps, and what an enormous amount of crow you're going to have eat in view of your errors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow
@46 Terence Hill
Sep 30th, 2016 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your dictionary definitions show that compulsory is one meaning of obligation. However it also mentions other meanings. I would say that 'a duty' is the closest to the meaning in the context of the burden of proof, and a duty need not be compulsory.
“Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense”
The liar paradox:
”Sentences can be constructed that cannot consistently be assigned a truth value even though they are completely in accord with grammar and semantic rules.
The simplest version of the paradox is the sentence:
This statement is false. (A)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
And you have missed out your biggest and wrongest claim:
“so if its 'truth' is unsupported, then it follows it cannot be true”
Got any evidence for that?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!