Trump and racism

[carpedm9587]

Trump is apparently so smart that he's able to openly collude with Russia and be an overt, outspoken racist without leaving behind a shred of evidence.

Actually, there is significant evidence. You (and others) seem to confuse "evidence" with "proof."

[Zymologist]

Actually, there is significant evidence. You (and others) seem to confuse "evidence" with "proof."

I haven't been impressed with the "significant evidence."

[carpedm9587]

I haven't been impressed with the "significant evidence."

I am not surprised by that.

[Zymologist]

I am not surprised by that.

Why do you say that?

[carpedm9587]

Why do you say that?

Because that is pretty much the universal position of the right. It doesn't really matter what evidence is presented, it is simply discounted as "not evidence." For the right, Trump is the quintessential Teflon politician - nothing sticks. We have a huge body of evidence that Trump is enriching himself by virtue of his office, that Trump has racist inclinations, that he is dishonest and defends it as "OK," and that he has significant personality flaws - but it is all waved away because the right likes his policies.

The message is clear: morality is secondary to tax cuts, trade agreements, and supreme court nominees.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, there is significant evidence. You (and others) seem to confuse "evidence" with "proof."

Like I said, it's funny how you don't apply this same extremely lenient standard of evidence to the Resurrection.

[Zymologist]

Because that is pretty much the universal position of the right. It doesn't really matter what evidence is presented, it is simply discounted as "not evidence." For the right, Trump is the quintessential Teflon politician - nothing sticks. We have a huge body of evidence that Trump is enriching himself by virtue of his office, that Trump has racist inclinations, that he is dishonest and defends it as "OK," and that he has significant personality flaws - but it is all waved away because the right likes his policies.

The message is clear: morality is secondary to tax cuts, trade agreements, and supreme court nominees.

I didn't vote for Trump, and I'm not on "the right" so much as I'm a libertarian (small-l: not a fan of the LP).

[carpedm9587]

I didn't vote for Trump, and I'm not on "the right" so much as I'm a libertarian (small-l: not a fan of the LP).

Fair enough. If I applied a general observation about the right to you indiscriminately, then that was unjust of me and I apologize.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, it's funny how you don't apply this same extremely lenient standard of evidence to the Resurrection.

I actually do - which is why I do not believe the resurrection has adequate evidence to substantiate it as an "historical event."

[Zymologist]

Fair enough. If I applied a general observation about the right to you indiscriminately, then that was unjust of me and I apologize.

I keep my radical libertarian positions mostly to myself, so it's probably not unwarranted.

[KingsGambit]

I keep my radical libertarian positions mostly to myself, so it's probably not unwarranted.

How libertarian of you.

[Starlight]

I actually do - which is why I do not believe the resurrection has adequate evidence to substantiate it as an "historical event."

Given the vast majority of people in Jerusalem at the time were not convinced the resurrection happened, it is amusing that people in the present day are supposed to believe it based on much more tenuous 2nd-hand evidence (Gospel writings written long after, not by eyewitnesses) than the people at the time had (who could actually go talk to as many 'eyewitnesses' as they wanted). I guess the Jerusalemites were just too rigorous in their skepticism and excessive demands for evidence! Whereas we should obviously be much more credulous and gullible about believing the teachings of a cult than the people of the time were, it's only reasonable!

[carpedm9587]

Given the vast majority of people in Jerusalem at the time were not convinced the resurrection happened, it is amusing that people in the present day are supposed to believe it based on much more tenuous 2nd-hand evidence (Gospel writings written long after, not by eyewitnesses) than the people at the time had (who could actually go talk to as many 'eyewitnesses' as they wanted). I guess the Jerusalemites were just too rigorous in their skepticism and excessive demands for evidence! Whereas we should obviously be much more credulous and gullible about believing the teachings of a cult than the people of the time were, it's only reasonable!

This is interesting. Where is this "incredulousness" documented?

[Mountain Man]

I actually do - which is why I do not believe the resurrection has adequate evidence to substantiate it as an "historical event."

So are you saying that there is not adequate evidence to substantiate that Trump is a racist?

And isn't that same as saying that he's not a racist? Occam's Razor and all that...

[Starlight]

This is interesting. Where is this "incredulousness" documented?

The works of Josephus document the goings on in Jerusalem in reasonable detail, especially in the 66-73AD war. From his descriptions of the various factions and their actions it is obvious that the vast majority of Jerusalemites weren't Christians. He discusses dozens of different factions and their activities and there are only 2 mentions of Christians in the entire works. Jesus gets a mention as (one of many) self-proclaimed prophets, and James the brother of Jesus gets a mention when he gets executed by the governor. It's about 2-5 sentences (some are believed to be later insertions by Christian copyists) in works that are hundreds of pages long on the subject. If the majority of Jerusalem (or even a large minority) had become Christians it would get orders of magnitude more coverage in the course of the books.