More often in the United States such measures are employed against the Green Party, or even people who support the Democratic Party (difference in phrasing describing those two groups is precise and deliberate). But if those measures were aimed specifically against the Republican party, that would not be an unreasonable conclusion. Especially if the measures were (arguably) justified, like e.g. banning Donald Trump from running for office because of his association with the attempted putsch on Jan. 6, 2021. Notably, such a justification depends heavily on the particulars and thus cannot be easily generalized; the crimes (or their appearance) in another case may be less or greater despite the rationale being the same.
Venezualan election 2024
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
About the only difference is the open warfare part. The US is much more fond of violent street gangs and organizing a country's own military against them.
Things on par with whatever your sources are, but could be wrong, yes. I never claimed to know the truth of the various disputed claims. Which means I know at least one thing more than you, since you do claim to know even though you manifestly do not.
Ahhh, ok-- you were just posting it without any comment or belief on whether the events described happened. I see. Makes lots of sense. Here I was thinking you were suggesting the opposition was involved in violence! Glad to know there's no such unknowable claims being made.
It is not my problem that you seem to have no understanding of what knowledge is.
This isn't a question of epistemology, bud.
You just wanted to dismiss sources that said things you don't like, so you pointed to their second-hand nature and insinuated that we can't take info from them with any reliability as a result. But then you also wanted to keep relying on second-hand sources when they said things you liked.
when speaking of foreign countries that are targets of propaganda in a system where money tells you what to believe, it is. this situation is one of the rare times epistemology becomes useful instead of academic navel-gazing.
I'm not going to refrain from posting interesting and plausible counterarguments simply because I am more realistic about what I know than you are. Such an approach would be preemptive surrender to the disinformation favored by the loudest, least self-reflective morons.
Media Coverage of Venezuela’s Presidential Election Normalizes US Interference - Venezuelanalysis
Roger D. Harris and Peter examine the US hybrid war against the Caribbean nation in the wake of the recent presidential election.
venezuelanalysis.com
Every time you've made a claim about how the US acts, or Israel, or any other country, you've simply presented it as what's happening. A fact. Everyone does so.
Just a few posts ago, you said "anti-democratic measures are more often employed against the Green party". That statement has exactly the same level of certainty as saying, "We know anti-democratic measures are [etc]". And yet you don't know that for certain, do you? It's nigh impossible to know without some reliance on second-hand sources.
Yet stating it as fact was fine. Because only someone being an eye-roll-inducing epistemology pedant would object to the framing of it as a statement of fact without unachievable, absolute knowledge.
that is not controversial; as far as I am aware the people responsible (e.g. the Democratic party who sues to keep Greens off ballots) don't even bother to dispute the claim. They simply ignore it. Also, it's happening in my country. Easier to verify for me specifically.
Lol ok, and I'm sure you're personally verifying such things before saying them on The Escapist. To say nothing of the countless statements of fact made about countries that aren't your own.
it's not really subtle how you're moving the goalposts. the fact remains that you say you know controversial things that you merely believe, and you pretend that everyone else has come to the same dubious 'knowledge' that you have because we all read The Economist™ or whatever.
Are you saying the dems haven't sued to keep the Green party off of ballots?
I should also respond to this specifically, as it is the focus of how the goal posts were moved:
It does not. The certainty of the one is unstated and therefore not defined. The certainty of the other is stated: knowledge agreed upon by all participants in the conversation. That is a higher standard, as evidenced by the fact you felt the need to emphasize it when speaking of the supposed crimes of Maduro's government. "We know _______" implies a much greater certainty than... as far as I recall anything I've ever posted.
Moral opinions are phrased in the exact same way as matters of fact.
It is hardly unusual to say "IT IS wrong to do X". So this must mean that there are objective moral facts! But that's obviously silly (I regard the conclusion as silly, but even someone who believes in objective moral facts would be silly to propose that argument in favor of their claim-- not that it hasn't happened).
This vagueness is a feature of English (and other languages). Probably because we can work with statements of varying degrees of certainty and yield conclusions contingent upon the truth of each premise without needing to bother figuring out how likely each premise is to be true: humans are able to function with only very rudimentary epistemology, and improving language in that manner is not usually consequential.
So no, saying something is some way-- stating a claim-- is not equivalent to presuming and declaring mutual acknowledgment of the certainty of that claim. Obviously.
Unavoidably, the statement of anything as fact will involve some degree of assumption or belief, bridged by the use of second-hand information and our judgement about its reliability. So sure, I did that, as I was open about from the start. Just as you have done the same, just as everyone here has without exception, countless times. You simply decided that was an unacceptable way to reach a conclusion when the statement was something you found politically disagreeable-- while your own statements of fact rely on the same bases all the time.
Obviously not. I'm saying that second-hand information was sufficient to reach that conclusion, so it's hypocritical and absurd to pretend that the use of second-hand sources to reach factual conclusions is unacceptable.
Oh, what weaselly horseshit. That wasn't a "moral opinion" you gave. You said something was factually happening. The statement, "the door is made of wood" doesn't actually mean "the door is made of wood [or it might not be, I dunno]".
Last edited:
It also doesn't mean "the door is certainly made of wood" or "We both know the door is made of wood". But please, do carry on.
Well, yes, it sort of does. A statement of fact-- without qualification-- is functionally identical to saying you know it's the case in most contexts.