Samantha Power visit in Hungary

[Atlantic Reptilian]

He said that he can usually tell people's motives earlier than the average man, not that he can usually tell average people's motives earlier than the motives of non-average people. Those are two different things.

Yes, the averageness seems not to have been defined, but about about the word people? I mean, people had already defined it to some extent, since that's a plural noun of person (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/people). The dictionary states that people means: "a human being, whether an adult or child: persons in general [...]". If specifying a specific types of persons/people, that could be more clearly defined, such as political/powerful/influential people? Obviously he (@Loki) also mentioned earlier that he had followed Putin for a long time.

[gixajo]

No, but I've heard a sufficient amount from them for me to make an informed decision about their characters. For example, I've been listening to what Putin has been saying for 20 years, and compared his talk with his actions over the years, and how he has influenced the world around him.

Likewise, the results of Soros' actions are visible.

There are quite more visible the actions of Putin.

[Aldaris]

Yes, the averageness seems not to have been defined, but about about the word people? I mean, people had already defined it to some extent, since that's a plural noun of person (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/people). The dictionary states that people means: "a human being, whether an adult or child: persons in general [...]". If specifying a specific types of persons/people, that could be more clearly defined, such as political/powerful/influential people? Obviously he also mentioned earlier that he had followed Putin for a long time.

My reply was purely about formal syntax. What I wrote in there can also be generalized and written by using just abstract symbols. But we can have a discussion about the meaning of the words aswell, even though it's not really necessary. I'm done with my work for today and recevied no e-mails other than those from Indian scammers, so I can relax for a bit. But let's not go too off-topic with philosophy in here. The meaning of the term 'people' is clearly defined. The meaning of terms like 'average' or 'influential' is not. Let's just go with 'you know it when you see it'. That's the best you can do, as such terms are inherently fuzzy. In other words, where do you draw the line? It's the same with races. You can't draw the clear lines either, but I can still tell a Bushman from a Swede. Sorites paradox all over again.

[Atlantic Reptilian]

My reply was purely about formal syntax. What I wrote in there can also be generalized and written by using just abstract symbols. But we can have a discussion about the meaning of the words aswell, even though it's not really necessary. I'm done with my work for today and recevied no e-mails other than those from Indian scammers, so I can relax for a bit. But let's not go too off-topic with philosophy in here. The meaning of the term 'people' is clearly defined. The meaning of terms like 'average' or 'influential' is not. Let's just go with 'you know it when you see it'. That's the best you can do, as such terms are inherently fuzzy. In other words, where do you draw the line? It's the same with races. You can't draw the clear lines either, but I can still tell a Bushman from a Swede. Sorites paradox all over again.

True. I wont bother you since you've finished all your work today
I just found your post interesting.

[Tauromachos]

There are quite more visible the actions of Putin.

Comparing the actions of US\Nato to those of Putin, more suffering and evil has
been brought to the world by US\Nato then by Putin.

[Aldaris]

True. I wont bother you since you've finished all your work today
I just found your post interesting.

You're not bothering me at all, pal.

[Atlantic Reptilian]

Comparing the actions of US\Nato to those of Putin, more suffering and evil has
been brought to the world by US\Nato then by Putin.

Well, it could be argued here that the US/NATO also has been more engaged in the world because of its military superiority, hence it has more experience = more outcomes, which by a probable cause would mean (in this case) that some of those actions might have resulted in negative actions. Now, compare that to how many actions of Russia that have resulted into net positive/negative effects.