6 votes

George Will changes his mind on contradictions

George Will, FOX News commentator changes his mind on contradictions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbzxECx-mQ



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jan Helfeld's picture

A=A

A=A

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

Did you hear George Will claim that reality itself was contradic

Did you hear George Will claim that reality itself was contradictory?

Jan Helfeld

Might makes right

The lie that might makes right is based upon the lie that there is no such thing as right and wrong, which is necrophilia, nihilism, immoral, criminal, guilty, non-adaptive, non-creative, destructive, evil, power of mind.

Such power borrows the creations, and the adaptations, the qualities, the productivity, the life sustaining good power, and uses those creations as false fronts that then hide their criminal minds from their victims, hides their criminal actions from their victims.

Sometimes the evil, criminal, destructive, people confess because they fail to maintain the false front.

If the evil criminal liar in question can explain something like a paradox, then the evil criminal liar would not be able to admit that the viewpoint shared by the evil criminal liar is the cause of the paradisaical viewpoint, most likely, whereby the paradox viewed can possibly be explained logically in some way not yet known.

Example:

Before anything there was nothing, so where was this nothing before there was anything to put something?

That is a paradox for people like me who do not yet have an answer.

I've read answers offered by many people.

So this George Will criminal liar lies about things he does not know, and that is a surprise?

"Did you hear George Will claim that reality itself was contradictory?"

The criminals claim to have all the answers all the time and all anyone needs to do to get the latest answer is to pay them more fraud money.

Today's answer, the absolutely true answer, according to the criminals, is absolutely what it is today, even if the same question has an opposite answer (yes yesterday, no today) tomorrow.

Because they say so.

Why?

Because reality itself made them lie.

Reality itself did it.

Reality is to blame for their accurately measurable self-contradictions.

Where did they pick up that lie?

Their master told them.

Who is their master?

Evil

It consumes them, they are victim to their own lies.

Who do they say that their master is?

All that is good for everyone, of course, since they are here to help, and all it costs is a few daily payments of fraud money that they offer as the only money, the best fraud money that lies can buy.

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

Contradictions lead to evil behaviour

Yes, contradictions can lead to evil behaviour.

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

Watch others contradicting themselves on contradictions

Watch others contradicting themselves on contradictions here on DP: Clarence Page, David Corn, etc.

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

Why did George Will change his mind?

Why did George Will change his mind?

Jan Helfeld

Why?

Why do you twist words?

The older interview where George Will disagrees with logic and contradiction as incompatible (yes can't be yes and no at the same time) is understandable as someone making a false claim.

Did George Will know (in his mind) that he was making a false claim then?

You, Jan Helfeld, have made false claims about me, and I do not know what is in your mind, so I cannot be certain that you Willfully lied, or if you are merely ignorant, and there is no way that I can know if you change your mind, if there is no way I can know what is in your mind; especially when the words you offer are false, or twisted.

So George Will makes an obvious false claim in the older interview.

Then George Will does not get caught making the same false claim in the newer video.

How do you, or how does anyone, know if George Will changed his mind?

Can someone who proves to be fully capable of speaking falsehoods be trusted to continue speaking falsehoods?

What are the odds?

What are the odds that you knew that your falsehoods told about me are false?

Can you be trusted as someone who WILL speak falsehoods?

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

I take George Will at his word

I take George Will at his word, unless I have evidence he is purposely lying. I don't make false claims like you. The claims I make I back up.

Jan Helfeld

Proof BUMP

"I don't make false claims like you."

If you could prove your false claim (quoted above), then you logically would do so, since failing to do so is evidence that logically proves that you do make false claims.

As to claims that you back up, there is proof that you did not.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3427653

If you could back up your claim that my viewpoint is criminal, then logically you would, but instead, since you can't, you won't, and instead you make another false claim.

False claim 1:
You claimed, in writing, that my viewpoint was criminal.

That is false.

False claim 2 and 3:

"I don't make false claims like you."

Your false claim 1 proves that you do make false claims. Failure on your part to prove your first false claim to be true, where you falsely claim a false claim about me, compounds your false claims, having 2 false claims in one sentence.

My viewpoint is not criminal, as you falsely claim.

You prove that you do make false claims, even while you make more false claims.

"The claims I make I back up."

If you do not back up the 3 false claims already shown, then you now have 4 false claims working.

BUMP 7-9-2014

Claims are still not backed up = another false claim added to the three other false claims already documented.

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

Provide proof

Provide proof of your claim that I said your viewpoint was criminal.

Jan Helfeld

The facts

Published words in a Topic:
http://www.dailypaul.com/320709/friedman-vs-helfeld-debate-w...

Published reply by me:
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3427543

Here is where your challenge "Provide proof of your claim that I said your viewpoint was criminal" is answered by you:

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3427612

Quote:
______________________________
You are the one with a "criminal view point" but I am too polite to call your view criminal, instead I say you are mistaken and misguided. Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights because optimal protection of my rights depends on a limited government. I know you disagree, but make an attempt to see it from my perspective and stop the name calling. If you are mistaken about the issue, your name calling and analysis would apply to you.
_____________________________________

Note: The arrangement of words is self-contradictory.

The arrangement of words starts with:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

Then, after writing (not saying):

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

After writing that is this:

but I am too polite to call your view criminal

Writing this first:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

Then writing this next:

but I am too polite to call your view criminal

Writing this first:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

Writing this next:

but I am too polite to call your view criminal

You also wrote this:

Yes, contradictions can lead to evil behaviour.

So one more time:

This first:
You are the one with a "criminal view point" (by Jan Helfeild)

This is the same sentence next:
but I am too polite to call your view criminal (by Jan Helfeild)

Summing up:
Yes, contradictions (such as those done by Jan Helfeild) can lead to evil behaviour. (by Jan Helfeild)

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

You are the one who said I had a criminal view point

Finally the truth. You are the one who said I had a criminal view point- this is your language not mine, that is why I put it in quotes-, and when I SAID I am too polite to call your view "criminal", instead I say you are mistaken and misguided (my language), then you say I falsely accused you of having a criminal view point. I knew you had falsely accused me!

Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights because optimal protection of my rights depends on a limited government.I know you disagree, but make an attempt to see it from my perspective and stop the name calling. If you are mistaken about the issue, your name calling and analysis would apply to you.

Jan Helfeld

At no time

When did you decide to publish the following?

"Provide proof of your claim that I said your viewpoint was criminal."

Was your intent, when you decided to publish those words, an intent on your part to find proof?

If so, then you can find proof right where proof exists:

"You are the one with a "criminal view point"..." (by Jan Helfeld)

At no time was it my intention to change the subject from your direction expressed here:

"Provide proof of your claim that I said your viewpoint was criminal."

At no time was it my intention to change the subject from finding proof that you claim that my viewpoint is criminal.

Now, again at your direction, you change the subject from the proof provided, where you claim that my viewpoint is criminal, to other things.

At no time did I change from providing proof, which was provided, to changing the direction to some other thing.

What I mean is that the proof was provided, in your own words, and at no time did I avoid my focus of attention upon that proof, since you made that challenge, and therefore I did not avoid that challenge, instead of avoiding that challenge, I provided the proof.

So that can be established as fact.

Again:

"Provide proof of your claim that I said your viewpoint was criminal." (by Jan Helfeld challenging Joe Kelley)

"You are the one with a "criminal view point"..." (by Jan Helfeld as Joe Kelley provides proof instead of changing the subject to avoid providing the proof, as the proof was provided by Jan Helfeld, in his own words)

So as to get that established, rather than avoiding that, where Jan Helfeld challenges and Joe Kelley provides, so as to keep that well understood as the facts of the matter, it can then be understood that there is a change from that to something else.

"Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights because optimal protection of my rights depends on a limited government"

I advocate voluntary association among volunteers.

I advocate trial by jury according to ancient wisdom; involving trial by the country, employing sortition, where 12 randomly picked jurists try the facts, the law, and the punishment, if any, in each case. Whereby due process is afforded to everyone without exception.

That is what I advocate, among other things, such as constitutional republics joined into a voluntary federation, exemplified between 1776 and 1787 in America.

Those are the things I advocate, and I can provide proof.

Your sentence quoted, pertaining to your opinion concerning what I advocate:

"Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights because optimal protection of my rights depends on a limited government"

If that were true then that could be shown to be true.

If not then not.

On the other hand:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

That is from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/317382/is-julie-borowsky-an-anarchist

Time: 0:52

Those who advocate a thing that possesses citizens do so.

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

READ MY POST

Finally the truth. You are the one who said I had a criminal view point- this is your language not mine, that is why I put it in quotes-, and when I SAID I am too polite to call your view "criminal", instead I say you are mistaken and misguided (my language), then you say I falsely accused you of having a criminal view point. I knew you had falsely accused me!

Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights because optimal protection of my rights depends on a limited government. I know you disagree, but make an attempt to see it from my perspective and stop the name calling. If you are mistaken about the issue, your name calling and analysis would apply to you.

Jan Helfeld

Finally your version.

Finally you explain how I mistakenly took your word to mean what you wrote.

You wrote this:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

You now write that that does not mean that now? I should ask now.

So...

You are not writing this:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

Now that means the opposite of what that means, according to you now.

This:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

That now means this:

You are NOT the one with a "criminal view point"

The opposite meaning is the intended meaning?

Since what you wrote is not what you wrote, and since I took you for your word, I am guilty of falsely accusing you now. Is that now correct?

Now you don't mean that, instead you means something other than that, because your writing includes quotation marks which mean something other than the meaning of the words you wrote.

"I knew you had falsely accused me!"

These words:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

That now means the opposite of that, so now I am guilty of claiming that you wrote that, and you didn't, because you wrote the opposite, and that just looks like that.

I can certainly admit that words are often misunderstood.

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

That does not mean this:

You are the one with a criminal view point

That means this:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

Which actually means this:

You are the one without a criminal view point.

So, as far as I can tell, I falsely accused you of writing this:

You are the one with a "criminal view point"

As far as I can tell, now, that does not mean that, that means the opposite of that, because you used quotation marks?

But you wrote this:

"Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights..."

That does not mean I have a criminal viewpoint, that means that I have a "criminal viewpoint," according to you?

Yet your words appear to ignore the obvious problem with miscommunication, as you apparently have no reference as to what I actually advocate. You appear to be making things up as you go along, as if what I actually advocate is irrelevant.

If you are ignorant as to what I advocate then how can you possibly know what will happen if actions I advocate are successful?

Dodging:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

That is from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/317382/is-julie-borowsky-an-anarchist

Time: 0:52

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

or

What does the following words actually mean today?

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

Are there any quotation marks attached when you spoke, so as to give someone a heads up about how your actual words are the opposite of what you actually mean?

If I were to assume that you advocate things owning people, based upon your words, then I could accuse you of advocating things owning people based upon your words.

If you words mean the opposite of what your words mean in this case too, then I can avoid making the same mistake twice, assuming that your answer to the question isn't as self contradictory as writing something that means the opposite because you add quotation marks.

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

Do you know why "criminal view point" was in quotes?

Do you know why "criminal view point" was in quotes? I explained it in my previous post, twice - it is your language. Read it.

Jan Helfeld

False accusations again?

"Read it."

I read it. Did you just falsely accuse me of not reading it?

The point is well taken, and offered, that your words do not mean what they mean if I read them, so asking questions as to what you mean is proven to be the only way to know what you mean when you write, or speak.

If you assume that you know what I advocate, and your accusations of what I advocate are based upon your assumptions, then you could easily make false accusations.

That is a proven fact - unless your use of quotes has another meaning.

How about the following?

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

That is from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/317382/is-julie-borowsky-an-anarchist

Time: 0:52

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

If I can admit that I now have no idea what you mean when you write a sentence, then by what power are you able to know what I advocate when you never ask the question as to what I advocate?

I am asking you a question that is specific to what you advocate.

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

I can admit that communication is difficult at best, and I can admit that both of us may not understand each other, and from that understanding I see value in asking specific questions concerning precisely what you do advocate, before making any further conclusions as to what you advocate, in your own words.

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

What did you mean when you spoke the following words:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

You did not answer my question.

You did not answer my question.

Jan Helfeld

According to you.

Your version of what I did is your version.

My version of what I did is such that I did answer your question.

You used quotes in a sentence.

I read the sentence.

I read your explanation as to why you used quotes the way you used quotes.

I then commented on your explanation of why you used quotes the way you used quotes.

That is my answer to your question.

You wrote this:
____________________________
You are the one with a "criminal view point" but I am too polite to call your view criminal, instead I say you are mistaken and misguided. Your advocacy and actions if successful will lead to undermining my rights because optimal protection of my rights depends on a limited government. I know you disagree, but make an attempt to see it from my perspective and stop the name calling. If you are mistaken about the issue, your name calling and analysis would apply to you.
______________________________

Then you wrote the following as an explanation of your use of quotes, and you added other comments to your explanation of why you used quotes:
______________________________
Finally the truth. You are the one who said I had a criminal view point- this is your language not mine, that is why I put it in quotes-, and when I SAID I am too polite to call your view "criminal", instead I say you are mistaken and misguided (my language), then you say I falsely accused you of having a criminal view point. I knew you had falsely accused me!
________________________________

That is why you used quotes.

How is that not answering your question?

You answered your question.

When will you ever think that I have answered your question?

"You did not answer my question."

Do you think, still, that I did not answer your question?

You answered your question.

Here is your question:

"Do you know why "criminal view point" was in quotes?"

Here is THE answer:
______________________________
Finally the truth. You are the one who said I had a criminal view point- this is your language not mine, that is why I put it in quotes-, and when I SAID I am too polite to call your view "criminal", instead I say you are mistaken and misguided (my language), then you say I falsely accused you of having a criminal view point. I knew you had falsely accused me!
________________________________

That is THE answer to your question. I you want MY answer to your question, then you will get my viewpoint on your viewpoint.

Then you can say that I did not answer your question.

THE answer to your question is provided by you, not me.

I offer this:

"Should the government redistribute ITS citizens wealth?"

That is from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/317382/is-julie-borowsky-an-anarchist

Time: 0:52

Do you, Jan Helfeld, advocate a thing that possesses citizens?

Joe

With a straight face?

The champion of falsehood, with a straight face, accuses someone else of contradiction?

Well, CoF (Champion of Falsehood) is it logical to expect that ending crime can be accomplished by being the worst criminal, creating the most victims, and in that way you save the children by burning them alive?

Your Falsehood at work:

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/deat...

Doing what the CoF does best since 1787?

And the CoF dares blame the Germans and the Bolsheviks?

CoF in action at home:
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FD...

CoF in action in Germany:
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

CoF in action in Russia:
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

So, of course, we all want to save the children from bad things happening, so where is the gasoline and the lighter?

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

So...saving the children by burning them alive isn't working out so well, and what is the solution?

Send more fraudulent money back to the CoF, and maybe this time, with more of their fraudulent money returned, they will, this time for sure, save the children?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Sure, sure, it works every time.

Pay, and don't question the payments.

Joe

Jan Helfeld's picture

Are contradictions incompatible with logic?

Do you agree that contradictions are incompatible with logic; and if you contradict yourself you are wrong and not being logical?

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

First he said contradictions are compatible with logic

In a previous interview he argued that contradictions are compatible with logic. Thus he argued you can contradict yourself and still claim to be right as well as logical. Now he agrees with Jan that contradictions are incompatible with logic. If you contradict yourself you are wrong and not being logical.

Jan Helfeld