If you’re not a democrat and believe calls for Trumps impeachments & indictments are political hit jobs, can you believe he is unfit to be president?

[Adaeva]

Democrats don't care about the law, justice, or the facts if it doesn't support what they want, but they will always claim they do. Certainly, calls for Trumps impeachments and indictments, and efforts to jail his supporters is unconstitutional and un-American. However, I also believe Trump is unfit to be president and I agree with the following article: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/04/david-stockman/lock-him-out/

[abc3643]

Oh God... You have so much growing up to do starting with learning how to discern sources and think from other people's perspectives. At 14, I realize that the latter part is tough, but you occasionally show glimpses of promise.

[Adaeva]

I prefer sources that teach me to think; not shape the way I think.

[abc3643]

Which is exactly the opposite of what you are doing.

[Adaeva]

I'm not going to let mainstream media, the propaganda arm of whoever it is that rules the USA shape the way I think. Aside from sports, obituaries, the weather, and time of day, there is not a bit of truth in them. The lie even when the truth would fit their agenda better.

[abc3643]

Well, let me ask you this... And, I want to be clear, I am not making a point - this is a genuine question...

How do you determine if a source "shapes" the way you think or teach you to think?

For instance, suppose I gave you a new source of info:
The Encyclopedia Galactica.

How would you determine if it is a good source or not for information?
What steps would you take?

[Adaeva]

First I found the term and took a lesson from Yeonmi Park while watching the YouTube video “Tyranny, Slavery and Columbia U Yeonmi Park” with Dr Peterson. She explained how Columbia University was a waste of time and money. To graduate, she had to censor her words because every course had an element of political correctness to would shape how you think. After watching the video I determined Columbia U represented mainstream media.

After that, I determine if the site’s articles usually appear to tell the truth by explaining their statements and often telling what the opposing side said? Or, does the site just make statement with no explanation and do I catch them telling lies and censoring facts such as, if reporting a crime do they omit the fact that the person committing the crime is black?

[abc3643]

OK, this is interesting...

You wrote: "if reporting a crime do they omit the fact that the person committing the crime is black?"

Why is the ethnicity of the perpetrator relevant? Are the laws different between ethnic groups?
And, if ethnicity is important, why, then, do not omit saying when the perpetrator is White?
For instance, Donald Trump is going to be arraigned on Tuesday. Are you expecting media outlets to report the next day that "Former President Donald Trump, who is 76 and White, was arraigned in Manhattan Supreme Court on charges of..."?

[Adaeva]

Trump is not some unknown, but almost always when a thug comments a crime, he is an unknown. If he is a white person mainstream media gives his race. And, if it is a white person killing a black, they make a big issue of and call it a hate crime, but not if the roles are reversed.

[abc3643]

Actually for the most part the don't identify a White person as white because that's usually assumed. But also often because it's irrelevant.

Anyway, I think we are getting off-track. Let me ask my question again but in a different way...

You have whatever method you use to discern where a source tells you what to think or teaches you what to think

OK how would you teach a machine to do the same thing?

So, if you said "Machine, what kind of source is The Encyclopedia Galactica?" what steps should it take to give you the answer? Think about it like a recipe which has definite steps to take to make the finished product. What steps would the machine take to answer you question?

[Adaeva]

If it is any encyclopedia, I assume the article is as accurate as realistically possible and I'm not going to attempt to determine if the article is accurate. Encyclopedias give information. They do not tell me what to think or attempt to shape how I think. The only exceptions are if the article is political opinion such as claiming Truman was justified dropping the atomic bombs. Usually, encyclopedias don't that. They may say Truman believed dropping the bombs saved 100,000 American lives. They will not say the bombs saved 100,000 lives because that is opinion. Perhaps sometimes an article is based on various opinions where not all experts agree on all the details, but I believe they do the best they can.

[abc3643]

I understand what you are saying.
I think I unfortunately gave you too narrow of an example.

Let's just assume someone gives you a source.
How will a machine determine if the source, in your words, tells you what to think as opposed to how to think?

[abc3643]

And that source could be anything... not just an encyclopedia...

[Adaeva]

No machine can do that. If I want to buy a skirt and I call to see if the store has my size and a computer answers, I can't ask the computer that question because computers can't answer questions. Instead, I get a menu and when I finally talk to a person I get the answer. If given a source, I have to make that decision. If it is source I'm familiar with, I probably already have an opinion. If it is a new source, I want to know it is obvious opinion or facts or else, if the source is giving opinions and calling them fact. Likely, I will not know, it is facts, lies, or opinions presented as facts. Therefore, if important to me, I Google the subject and to read others sources.

[abc3643]

We have machines do things like that all the time.
In fact, there's an entire science about it.
It's called control theory, but that's besides the point.

=======
What I am trying to get you to do is think through the process you use to identify the quality of an information source. Do you understand what I am asking? It's like writing down a recipe.

All people and many machines follow processes like this:
They have inputs and they have objectives and goals for what the outputs should be and then they act based on the differences and trends between what they want and what they've got.

For instance, suppose you are driving a car.
Your eyes sense the road. (that's the input)
Your brain takes the imagery from your eyes and determines what the road is doing (staying straight, going uphill or down, a turn is coming or not...)
Your brain then sends commands to the hands, feet, and head, to "actuate" the car - turn the steering wheel, step on the gas or brake, etc. - so that the car stays on the road.
Your eyes check the road to make sure the car is still on the road.
And that process goes on and on until you reach your destination.

Now, what I am asking for you isn't that complicated.
You are given an input: An information source.
Your goal is to determine if the information source is acceptable.
How do you do that?

By the way, do you know what a flowchart is? (It's sometimes called a process map.)

[Adaeva]

I don't think we are communicating. Regardless, if I'm taking some course and the teacher tell me I don't use the right pronouns based on whatever sex someone want to call themselves; that is attempting to shape how I think. Or, if the teacher says, "The fact that you're letting men hold the door for you is you are giving in to their overpowering you" is attempting to shape how I think.

[Adaeva]

Basically, if a source is stating opinions instead of facts and if the source is attempting to force the reader to accept those opinions, that is an attempt to shape how the reader thinks.

[abc3643]

OK that was good and, yes, that example you gave is someone trying to shape you. All humans do that everyday everywhere. That's what parents do not just teachers.

But you bring up a good question: how do you know if something is a fact versus an opinion?

There's an old quote by Daniel Patrick Moynihan: You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Adaeva]

Sometime I can tell by the way it is worded. It may be more difficult to tell if it is true or false that if fact or opinion. Sometimes it is impossible to know. If a woman says, "Twenty years ago, Trump raped me" I have no way if knowing if that is true, false, or opinion. Most of the time I will never know because I don't have time to research everything I read.

If I read, "Studies have proven that giving a choice most infant girls choose the pink toy and most boy infants, choose the blue toy." I would probably accept it as fact because it sounds plausible and it is not important enough for me to research the issue. I just made that example up so it is probably false, but it could be true that infants prefer some colors over other colors.

[abc3643]

You wrote:
"If I read, "Studies have proven that giving a choice most infant girls choose the pink toy and most boy infants, choose the blue toy." I would probably accept it as fact because it sounds plausible and it is not important enough for me to research the issue. I just made that example up so it is probably false, but it could be true that infants prefer some colors over other colors."

This is good, but this is a good example of taking things a step further and doing "due diligence".
DON'T accept it as true despite the plausibility.
Would you accept it if "Studies have proven that giving a choice most infant boys choose the pink toy and most girl infants, choose the blue toy."?
Probably not because you'd likely consider that implausible.
Well, that's not good to accept if it's one view (that you agree with) and reject if it's one view you don't agree with.
So, what we do is "due diligence" which means getting the source info and then assessing it.

OK, so how do we do that here?
You wrote "Studies have proven..."
So, the question to ask is "What studies?"
The source that said "Studies have proven" should either identify those studies or identify a "metastudy" which is a "study of studies".
Every good source will identify THEIR sources so they can be checked. Even lots of newspapers don't provide that which is not good. However, ultimately, you can keep looking. So, that 1 source said "Studies have proven", but, if that's a credible news source, then additional credible sources will say the same thing and, ultimately, one will be good enough that identifies the studies.

Once you can see the studies, then you can assess them individually.

If you want, I can give you a quick example.

[NostalgiaSenpi]

Of course, why wouldn't you be able to?

[exitseven]

He was president for 4 years. The country had prosperity and there was peace in the middle east. Our adversaries respected us ad. nd our allies would do what Trump told them to do do, or else. He got a lot of big things accomplished. He fixed the VA, Built almost 95%of a wall on the southern border, established the Space Force. Reloaded the military, implemented the largest middle class tax cut in recent memory, made US energy independent and many other things. He did all this while defending himself from multiple impeachment and attacks from the hostile media. Meanwhile we have a senile, compromised old fool as president who is more concerned about foreign countries than he is about the citizens he is supposed to serve.
He is definitely qualified to be president and I really hope he will be back.

[Uannoyme]

Is he someone I'd want to hang out with? Not at all, he is very full of himself. The thing is, as a person who pays bills and has financial responsibilities, my life was better under Trump. Under Biden, my 401K has taken a huge hit. For all intents and purposes, I'm now making less money simply because my money is worth less and everything costs a considerable amount more. That is my litmus test. So, I disagree with you

[CandyRat]

Trump is the best president of my lifetime. Bragg doesn't want to go after him, but Soros owns his black slave, Bragg. Bragg is about to be the laughing stock of the world, and he has to just suck it up. Al has no choice in the matter. He's just doing the bidding of his master.

[MannMitAntworten]

What I know is I pay a LOT more for EVERYTHING under the current president versus the last …and that my investments have tanked under the current versus the previous. That and crime is way up in my area since the current took over. It is a matter of perspective of what unfit is to you I suppose. If you are an earner, the last was better. If you are a handout, the current is your almighty god……….

[Pterodon]

He’s not unfit. Look at America under him vs biden

[Adaeva]

It is disheartening to see the lack of reasoning ability of GAG members and my implication most people. If your horse is third, you didn't win nor does the fact that your horse beat the horse that was fourth doesn't make you winner. If you argue otherwise, I'll delete you comment.

[Adaeva]

*GAG members and [by] implication most people.