SoylentNews

Yesterday, something extraordinary happened in the U.S. Congress. I've spent quite a bit of time over the years watching C-SPAN (I used to use it to fall asleep when I would take a nap), and I've never seen anything like this.

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver from Missouri was serving as Speaker pro tempore, which means he was effectively presiding over the House. (For those unfamiliar, it is rare for the actual Speaker of the House to preside on a daily basis. It's typically a more senior member of the majority party.) Rep. Cleaver was doing his best to adjudicate the parliamentary shenanigans of both parties during a debate over a bill to criticize Pres. Trump over recent "racist" tweets.

This is difficult in the House, as there are rules in place that say you must debate in a civil manner. You can't call the President a "racist" in open debate. You can't call other members of the House names either. A Republican stood up and yammered on while clearly implying some members of the House were "anti-American." That got objected to, but was overruled on a parliamentary technicality, so the words weren't stricken. Then our current Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, stood up and yammered on about Trump's "racist" actions. The Republicans challenged that too, and they too wanted her words stricken.

One thing you rapidly learn if you watch C-SPAN is how much time is wasted in Congress. Most of the time Congress is "in session" is wasted. Either they're engaging in parliamentary delaying tactics or other BS, or members are standing on the floor yelling at an empty chamber, hoping to get a soundbite on the evening news.

Rep. Cleaver was tired of this. He was tired of the fact that members (including both Republicans and Pelosi) were literally standing up and saying things they KNEW would draw objection for being uncivil. And after this objection was raised against Pelosi, there was an hour pause while everyone talked amongst themselves about what to do.

Cleaver climbed to the Speaker's chair again, looking like he was going to read the parliamentary ruling on whether Pelosi was out of order. Instead, he said he was "making a statement" and said:

We don't ever, ever want to pass up, it seems, an opportunity to escalate, and that's what this is. I dare anybody to look at any of the footage and see if there was any unfairness. But unfairness is not enough because we want to just fight. I abandon the chair.

He then dropped the gavel and walked off. I've never seen anything like this. I've looked up Congressional precedent, and nobody seems to think this has happened in at least the past 50 years or longer. For the presiding officer to walk off the floor in disgust at how both sides were behaving... well, it's one of the first reasonable things I've seen happen in Congress in a while. I too am a fan of civil discourse, and while some here may think the Congressional rules of decorum are overly strict, they are intended to result in at least a modicum of civility in debate.

He later released a statement on the debate:

Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with the childish rancor of our public discourse. Our inability to conduct ourselves in a civil and respectable fashion has paralyzed the most powerful government in the history of the world, and for what? A 10-second soundbite on prime time news and a few thousand twitter followers?

If this is what our government has come to, then we are in serious trouble as a nation. My frustration reflects that of my constituents and the American people as a whole. I have spent my entire life working with people of all faiths and stripes in an effort solve real-world problems with concrete solutions, but never have we been this divided and this unwilling to listen to countering opinions or accept objective truths. [...]

I have unshakeable and eternal faith in what we can accomplish as a people, but we can only overcome these challenges as a union. I truly believe American democracy is the greatest experiment ever conducted by a society. However, a house divided against itself cannot stand, regardless of how strong the foundation. I call on all of my colleagues and all of America to listen more and talk less, to show compassion for those who are in pain, and to resist the temptation to fight when others wish to escalate.

I applaud Congressman Cleaver's words and actions. I only wish this action was getting more press today. I'm fed up with both major parties' crap too. This whole session yesterday was operated as a publicity stunt by both sides, and they should be ashamed.

And, I think this is the most significant "chair abandonment" in American culture since Archie Bunker offered Sammy Davis Jr. "HIS chair" on All in the Family, with no hesitation whatsoever. That episode was also a lesson where a black man was sitting in a chair listening to a bunch of stupid white people have a debate over whether something/someone is racist too. At least that episode was funny, though. (In my opinion, one of the best episodes in television history.) Congressional irresponsibility is just shocking and sad.

If the American people were actually interested in real change, rather than the sham of our current leaders or the false promises of our President (and past Presidents), this would become a rallying point away from the two parties. #IAbandonTheChair should be a hashtag flying high as people look to third-party alternatives. But alas, this will not pass.

Tape shows Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein discussing women at 1992 party

The November 1992 tape in the NBC archives shows Donald Trump partying with Jeffrey Epstein at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, now a private club, more than a decade before Epstein pleaded guilty to felony prostitution charges in Florida.

The president says he hasn’t spoken to Epstein since, and that his relationship with him was no different than that of anyone else in their elite circle. “I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him,” Trump said last week. “I was not a fan.”

But on the tape, Trump gives Epstein plenty of personal attention.

Bruh momentum.

FULL Morning Joe [6AM] 7/17/19 | MSNBC News Today July 17, 2019

30:07: Pre-commercial break teaser
32:28: Segment starts
33:35: Footage from tape starts
34:13: Trump greets Epstein and 2 other guests
34:33-35:12: Trump totally not vibing with Epstein
39:41: Segment ends

The ‘Lady of the House’ Who Was Long Entangled With Jeffrey Epstein

One former employee of Mr. Epstein’s mansion in Palm Beach, Fla., referred to her as the “lady of the house.” Euan Rellie, an investment banker who attended dinner parties that she and Mr. Epstein hosted in New York, said she “seemed to be half ex-girlfriend, half employee, half best friend, and fixer.”

One of Mr. Epstein’s accusers, in court papers, used another word: madam.

Jeffrey Epstein had cash, diamonds and a foreign passport stashed in safe, prosecutors say

Jeffrey Epstein had a foreign passport that listed an address in Saudi Arabia to protect himself from 'hijackers or terrorists,' his lawyers claim in new court documents

Epstein's lawyers argued that the passport acquired in the 1980s was only used "for personal protection" in connection with Middle East travel because Epstein is Jewish.

[...] "Epstein - an affluent member of the Jewish faith — acquired the passport in the 1980s, when hijackings were prevalent, in connection to Middle East travel," they wrote. "The passport was for personal protection in the event of travel to dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential kidnappers, hijackers or terrorists should violent episodes occur."

"The government offers nothing to suggest — and certainly no evidence — that Epstein ever used it," his lawyers argued.

How Jeffrey Epstein Lost $80 Million in a Hedge-Fund Bet Gone Bad

Real Hedge-Fund Managers Have Some Thoughts on What Epstein Was Actually Doing

Remembering the Time Jeffrey Epstein Rode on Donald Trump’s Plane

^ Mentioned in MSNBC segment panel discussion.

Previously: Jeffrey Epstein Settles Suit
Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal Must Stand
Epstein Charged Again

Sorry about the following rant, but I'm just so tired of this nonsense. For those of you who have never had to deal directly with a credit bureau, please realize how awful this can be. Be prepared for days of potential headaches.

I went to sign up for cable internet a couple days ago. It's a long story, but suffice it to say that there was already an account at my address in the name of a person who hasn't lived at this address in awhile. Fixing this would've been a pain in the past, so I've been avoiding it. But rates for internet have increased, as typical with cable internet providers every year. I thought it would be a good time to finally just close out the previous account and hopefully get an intro deal for myself in the process.

Okay, so I can't just order the service online, since an account from that company already exists at my address. I have to call and talk to a person who insists on trying to upsell me and tries to "evaluate my needs," etc. when I just know what I want and what speed I want, etc. Then I am told they need to do a credit check. I ask whether I can just put down a deposit (which has worked for me in the past with many utilities, since I don't like giving out my SS# if I don't need to), but I'm told no. I give them my SS# and DOB, and then they tell me -- they can't check my credit, because it's frozen.

Right. I remembered that then. I froze all my credit bureau accounts after the whole Equifax breach thing came out two years ago or whatever. It seemed the only reasonable way to protect myself -- plus it saves me from getting unnecessary offers for credit. I rarely open new credit accounts or loans, and I have near-perfect credit (820-840 -- when you're in that range, any little thing makes it fluctuate up and down) as I've never missed a payment on anything, have held accounts forever, never carry credit card debt, etc.

I tell the cable internet person I'll need to call them back, and try to use Experian's website to temporarily "thaw" my credit. Except their online forms don't work. I try a number of things, but it claims it can't use the info I entered, and eventually they tell me I need to MAIL a copy of the page I just navigated to, along with copies of government ID and recent bill statements, just to get a temporary "thaw," so cable internet company can run a check on my (perfect) credit report. Meanwhile, my current cable internet is supposed to be ending this weekend.

Okay, so I tried to call Experian. I get an automated system (of course), with no option to talk to a real person. There's an option about credit freezes, but it only allows me to institute a freeze. No option to request a thaw through the phone. In the past with automated phone systems, I've often found if you just stop responding, it eventually connects you to an actual person. So I waited until it gave me the menu options about five times, at which point the prompt finally changed.

"You have reached the Fraud Department at Experian. We were unable to process your information from our automated voice system. We will respond to your request, but you must enter info for the following prompts, pressing 'pound' after each entry." Okay, so I figure I've reached a system that will allow me to leave a message or maybe even eventually connect me to a human, if I just enter the info. It asks me about five questions (name, address, DoB, etc.), and I respond to each one, pressing pound afterward.

At the end of the questions, the system announces, "We will now process your request to place a Fraud Alert on your credit file. We will also send your request to place a Fraud Alert to all the other credit bureaus." It says a couple more sentences, then announces "goodbye" and the line is cut off. At no point did the system indicate I was entering information to place a Fraud Alert on my credit report. At no point did the system ask me to confirm or otherwise acknowledge that's what I wanted to do. And when it was done, it simply hung up.

From what I understand, a Fraud Alert poses little problem -- it lasts a year and just means potential creditors will often go to extra steps to verify your identity. So I suppose it may not cause problems, but I really didn't want to do this. I look online to see if I can find another number for Experian to talk to a human. I got one from a trusted consumer advocate website I know and tried that. No luck. I see a lot of other websites offering random numbers to call, but I don't trust them -- I mean, if you call a credit bureau, it will often start asking for your SS# right away. I'm certain that desperate people who want to talk to a human probably get ensnared by identity theft schemes by calling some random phone number they find online.

So I figure I'll try something else. Out of desperation, I get Equifax's customer service number, and I'm speaking with an actual person within 30 seconds of placing my call. She was very nice when I explained what happened, but they couldn't do anything at Equifax until they received a Fraud Alert report from Experian. After sighing, I finally asked, "This may be a strange request, but is there any possibility YOU have access to a phone number where I could speak to an actual human at Experian??" And, miraculously, she says yes. I jot down the number and dial it excitedly. I reach Experian, which proceeds to give me an automated message that lasts at least a minute telling me a lot of stuff I don't care enough, but then concludes with "Goodbye" and hangs up. No human.

By this point it was late in the evening last Friday. I figure maybe I'll wait and have another go on Monday: maybe someone staffs the phones during normal business hours. No luck. The first number I called still never gets to a human. The second number I got from the consumer advocate website (to reach a human) has given me a busy signal every time I've called -- at least five times today. The number Equifax gave me does the same thing it did on Friday: it gives me a long automated message and then hangs up.

(I should mention that over the weekend, I tried using the automated system online to do a credit unfreeze again, and I was able to do it this time, even though I wasn't entering any different information. Why it didn't work one day but worked the next, I don't know. So I was able to get the credit check done with the cable company.)

Finally, I give in and decide I'll have to submit written documents. I spent over an hour today writing up a letter explaining what happened, then printing and filling out a form they had, then scanning that form along with proof of ID and a recent bill to my address to verify my identity. Thankfully, it seems Experian offers a place to submit a documents online, so I figure at least I can get this to them today (rather than mailing them), and hopefully head off this whole Fraud Alert thing.

Except, after entering all the info online, collecting PDF files of all my documents, etc., the stupid online form will not accept the uploads! It says it accepts up to 5 PDFs and TIFFs up to 15 MB total. I tried a single file (around only 1 MB), different files for all the documents, etc. No dice. For the TIFFs, it says black and white only (though not for the PDFs), so I think maybe this is going to a fax machine or something and convert all my documents to black and white. (I had scanned my driver's license, etc. in color, thinking it would be better to see my ID is valid with a higher-quality color image.) But even with the black and white documents, it won't work. And, of course, just like when I tried to request the credit unfreeze online, the error message it gives has no detail, so I have no idea what's wrong other than it won't accept the documents.

I used to think cable companies had set the bar for "worst customer service," perhaps along with the hoops it can take to resolve a medical billing error. But this weekend takes the cake in terms of poor customer experience. And what can we do about this as consumers? We're at the mercy of these companies that now basically control our lives through our credit scores. Once I finally get this error resolved, I will submit complaints to as many federal and state agencies as I can think of, but it will probably do little good.

Move Over Therapy Dogs. Hello, Therapy Cows.

Even without a psychology degree, Bella’s natural talents made her an excellent therapist: She is calm and accommodating of a range of personalities, with the patience to listen to endless problems without so much as a judgmental moo.

From a lush, secluded pasture on the Mountain Horse Farm, a 33-acre bed-and-breakfast in the Finger Lakes region of New York, 3-year-old Bella and 2-year-old Bonnie are the highlander-angus crossbred cows that provide animal-based therapy.

Cow cuddling, as the practice is called, invites interaction with the farm animals via brushing, petting or heartfelt chats with the bovines. The experience is similar to equine therapy, with one game-changing difference: Horses tend to stand, but cows spontaneously lie down in the grass while chewing their cud, allowing humans to get even more up close and personal by joining on the ground and offering a warm embrace.

[...] Each session is overseen by two human counterparts: an equine therapist, usually Ms. Vullers, who can read the animals’s moods to ensure a safe, positive interaction with their new human friends, and a second handler, who keeps a watchful eye on the other animals in the field.

Neither has a psychology degree, which is kind of the point: “Whatever they’re going through, they don’t have to talk about it,” said Ms. Vullers. “It’s not like therapy, right?”

Tell me moo about your problems.

Related: Alaskan Ranch Offers "Reindeer Yoga"

Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta resigns amid pressure from Jeffrey Epstein sex traffic case

Labor Secretary Alex Acosta said Friday he will resign amid controversy over the way he handled a sex crimes case against wealthy businessman Jeffrey Epstein a decade ago when he was U.S. attorney for southern Florida.

Acosta made the announcement to reporters while standing next to President Donald Trump outside the White House. Trump said Acosta had called him Friday morning and that it was Acosta's decision to quit.

R. Kelly Arrested on Federal Sex Trafficking Charges: Law Enforcement Officials

Singer R. Kelly has been arrested in Chicago on federal sex crime charges, according to two law enforcement officials.

The 52-year-old was arrested by Homeland Security Investigation agents and NYPD Public Safety Task Force Thursday night on sex trafficking charges, officials tell News 4, and it is expected he will be brought to New York.

The 13-count indictment includes charges of child pornography, enticement of a minor and obstruction of justice, U.S. attorney spokesman Joseph Fitzpatrick tells The Associated Press. Further details on the case are expected to be announced Friday out of the Eastern District of New York.

They were trapped in the closet.

See also: R. Kelly is arrested by feds on new charges while walking his dog in Chicago

Previously: R. Kelly Contracts Ligma
R. Kelly Exposes Himself
R. Kelly Meltdown

Previously 2: Epstein Charged Again (Southern District of New York)

Recovered GoPro video shows final moments of Himalayas climbers

Indian authorities have released footage showing the final moments of the climbers who died in the Indian Himalayas in May.

The video was found on a "memory video device" near the Nanda Devi East, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) said Monday, which showed the group of climbers moving slowly near the summit on the unnamed peak.

The group of eight climbers -- four Britons, two Americans, an Australian and their Indian liaison officer -- went missing when they were attempting to scale a previously unclimbed peak on May 26.

The final final moments were not released.

Also at NYT and NBC.

Intel’s 10th Gen ‘Comet Lake’ Desktop CPU Lineup Allegedly Leaks Out – Core i9-10900KF Flagship With 10 Cores, 20 Threads, 5.2 GHz Boost at $499 US, 8 Cores Start at $339 US, 6 Cores at $179 US

(Wccftech incorrectly labels Intel Core i7-10700K as $339 instead of $389, so refer to this blurry table from the source article.)

Intel feeling the heat, or just a deepfake?

The AMD X570 Motherboard Overview: Over 35+ Motherboards Analyzed

Interesting comment:

Jansen - Tuesday, July 09, 2019

The ASUS Pro WS X570-Ace has officially validated ECC support. This is a really big deal, as Ryzen has usually only had unofficial ECC support. It opens up a whole other revenue steam for AMD that Intel has deliberately cut off in order to drive Xeon sales.

Micron is ramping up its 16GB 3200MHz DDR4 ECC modules MTA18ADF2G72AZ-3G2 specifically for this market.

Mysterious X-37B Military Space Plane Caught on Camera (Photo)

Rare image of US Air Force's secretive space plane in orbit

Boeing X-37

Related: USAF Secret Plane Makes Longevity Record
What is the X-37B Doing Up There?
Modified X-37B Spaceplane Could Act as "Astronaut Ambulance" for the ISS
As Hurricane Irma Looms, X-37B Poised for First Flight Atop SpaceX Falcon 9

Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein arrested and accused of sex trafficking minors, sources say

Florida-based billionaire Jeffrey Epstein has been indicted on new charges related to alleged sex crimes involving minors, law enforcement sources told CNN on Saturday.

Epstein was arrested Saturday and is expected to appear in federal court in New York on Monday. Epstein faces charges brought by US prosecutors in Manhattan, after previously evading similar charges when he secured a non-prosecution deal with federal prosecutors in Miami.

The charges, contained in a sealed indictment, involve alleged sex trafficking crimes committed between 2002 and 2005, according to law enforcement sources. The indictment alleged that the crimes occurred in both New York and Palm Beach, Florida.

[...] A team of federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, along with some in the public corruption unit, have been assigned to the case. Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI director James Comey, is one of the prosecutors, according to a source with knowledge of the case.

COMEY?

Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Long Accused of Molesting Minors, Is Charged

He is expected to appear before a federal magistrate on Monday, more than a decade after he first gained notoriety with lurid accusations that he had paid dozens of girls for sexual massages in Florida.

Mr. Epstein had avoided federal criminal charges in 2007 and 2008 in a widely criticized plea deal whose lenient terms continue to roil the Justice Department and are facing new scrutiny in the #MeToo era.

Before the plea deal, Mr. Epstein, a former hedge-fund manager, had been friendly with Donald J. Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, the Duke of York.

[...] Women who said they were Mr. Epstein’s victims have repeatedly assailed federal prosecutors for agreeing to a nonprosecution deal with him more than a decade ago.

[...] The plea deal that protected Mr. Epstein from federal charges was signed by the top federal prosecutor in Miami at the time, Alexander Acosta, who is now President Trump’s labor secretary.

In February, a judge in Florida ruled that the prosecutors led by Mr. Acosta violated federal law when they failed to disclose Mr. Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement to his victims.

Check to see if "prince andrew epstein" is censored by GOOG autocomplete. Looks like it is.

Will the Epstein story have a... happy ending?

Previously: Jeffrey Epstein Settles Suit
Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal Must Stand

Over at a blog entitled The Sooty Empiric, the author The Last Positivist has an interesting explanation of the uses and abuses of logic, on the internet. It is interesting, first, because it is interesting ("But aristarchus", you might say, "that is a tautology!" To which I reply, "Yes, it is, and therefore logically true!"), and secondly because the misconception he adresses is rampant here on SoylentNews, as it is elsewhere on the Internets. And thirdly, because it highlights one of the essentials of philosophy: Humility; humility and Socratic ignorance. I'm sure many have noticed my humble attempts to exemplify philosophic humility right here on the pages of SN. But this is not about me. On to the Blog.

Boundless Ocean of Unlimited Possibilities
Sometimes (e.g.) on the internet we angst about the kind of person who likes to DESTROY his enemies with FACTS AND LOGIC AND REASON. Ben Shapiro has become the iconic figurehead of this sort, and not without cause - but that is at least somewhat misleading. Shapiro is prominently a fairly traditional conservative in his politics, but that is not an essential property of the sort. It is not tied to any particular political position so much as a self-characterisation and an aesthetic. The self-characterisation is that of an unbiased objective person who calmly follows (to the best of their abilities, accepting human frailty etc) good principles of rationality to reach conclusions. The aesthetic is that of being very impressed by displays of logical acumen, and very persuaded that one's ideological opponents (whoever they may be) can be set aside with relative ease once the tools of reason are brought to bear against them. This post is my contribution to that genre.

The aesthetic of displays of logical acumen, and a faith in victory! I mean, if not for this, conservatives would avoid logic like they do climate science. But let's see where The Last Positivist is going with this.

Now, I am a fan of fairly orthodox notions of logical argumentation. I do in fact think it is a good thing to offer arguments which are perspicuously such that there is no way for their premises to be true while their conclusion is false. All the better if you begin from true premises! Just on this blog I have tried to clarify clarity all the better to achieve it, and put a name to an under-recognised fallacy.

Philosophy vs. Rhetoric

        There is a long history of antagonism between reason and argumentation. Plato assigned his protege, Aristotle, to show how the teachers of rhetoric played tricks upon the rest of us. This led to the creation of the discipline of logic. Plato, through his character Socrates in the dialogue "The Symposium", held that "philosophers" were "lovers of wisdom", from the greek φιλος and της σοφίας for "love of" and " of wisdom". But the wise woman Diotima ("honored by the gods") taught Socrates about love, namely, that love is not having what you desire.

Thus, philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" precisely because they do not possess it. And wisdom minimally should contain the truth, and logic (correct reasoning) is a tool for arriving at the truth? Thus one ought to be able to use logic to compel one's misguided and erring opponents to agree with you, using what Jürgen Habermas calls "the forceless force of reason". Of course, if we "other direct" or weaponize logic in this way, we are using logic to win arguments, not to discover truth, and that is rhetoric and not philosophy. And so, our noble blogger's point:

So, after all that set up, and for all my sympathy and similarity to this group, what spurs this post is that I typically find myself totally opposed to the logic fans in aesthetic and self-presentation. Why should this be?

My guess is it comes from a very different idea of what it is that a general improvement in logical acumen would achieve. The internet logic fan imagines that it would often lead to us agreeing on what is true - by contrast, I imagine it would lead to us agreeing on how much we don't know. They imagine it would knock out possibilities, I imagine it would open them up. The rest of this post is just a quick explanation of what I mean here and why I think that.

If we possessed at least some truth, and were able to identify valid deductive arguments, no doubt we could, and indeed be forced to on pain of being irrational, agree on some things being true.

Logic is, among other things, the study of truth preservation. It gives us tools for discerning when it is that some premises being jointly accepted a conclusion cannot be consistently denied. When an argument has this property of its premises ensuring the truth of its conclusion we say it is valid.

But this is not sufficient.

I think the root of the logic fans' vision for logic DESTROYING their enemies is that with it they shall be making arguments that are valid in this sense. In fact there is usually two sides to this. First, their opponents are shown to be not in the business of arguing at all - what "arguments" they offer are little more than emotive pleas (on that contrast see here). And after that these people are sharply contrasted with the airtight reasoning of a scientifically informed and logically precise debater. They thus envision securing agreement by brushing aside their opponents own perspective, then trapping their enemies in the iron grip of a valid argument, and squeezing conclusions out of them whether they like it or not.

A bit more forceful use of reason, aimed not at laying bare the reasoning for our conclusions, but rather at seeking unilateral cause for dismissing our opponents. This is not agreement, it is "victory"!

But validity is only the beginning of wisdom, not its end. For evidently mere validity by itself is not very interesting - we should like to know not just this relationship between the premises and the conclusion, but also whether or not the premises are in fact true. (An argument which is valid and has true premises is known as a sound argument - by their nature, sound arguments must have true conclusions.) In fact, even that is not enough - for logic to really be dialectically effective in this sort of way, it must offer us not just sound arguments, but sound arguments with premises that are known or sufficiently well established to be true that one's opponents cannot very well reasonably deny them.

This is an interesting point, that logic is not agonistic, it is not a battle for the truth. Instead it is a communal search for truth, for agreement, and that means for an argument to be effective, it must be agreed to at the beginning, with the agreement on premises. In other words, διαλεκτική, Dialectic But, then,

And here is where I think the rub lies - I think it is extremely difficult, vanishingly rare in fact, to have arguments which are (i) interesting, (ii) valid, and (iii) possessing premises that are true and established to be so. By (i) I just mean - on the sort of topics that actually concern us in political and social discussion, coming to contentious conclusions about how we should live or arrange our institutions etc. And by (iii) I mean - having premises that are not only true (hard and rare enough in itself in many cases), but are sufficiently well evidenced such that disputants cannot just as reasonably doubt this premise as accept the conclusion.

What, then, is our valiant blogger's alternative?

So to me the more salient tool in the logician's kit is the counter-model. This is the imaginative skill (also taught in intro logic) of coming up with ways the world could be that would satisfy all of the premises while rendering the conclusion false. This shows us possibilities left open by what is established in our premises, sometimes these are ways the world might be that we may not have been inclined to think about were we not set the task of generating a counter-model. When I envision the world wherein logic is better respected, it is a world wherein this skill is more often deployed.

American Philosopher John Rawls once wrote on the situation where there is no forceful argument in favor of liberal democracy and international law:

Some may find this fact hard to accept. That is because it is often thought that the task of philosophy is to uncover a form of argument that will always prove convincing against all other arguments. There is, however, no such argument.

John Rawls, The Law of Peoples", p. 123

The absence of such arguments is not cause for fear, or rampant relativism. It only means that the force of reason is not what the fanbois of logic on the internet imagine it to be. Logic is not a rhetorical weapon, it is not something that can be used without the consent, agreement, and cooperation of opponents. Which means, ultimately, that we can dismiss Ben Shapiro as a raving emo guy, right?