Ed Opperman, Trump, Epstein, Why Beliefs Don’t Change |399|

#1
Ed Opperman, Trump, Epstein, Why Beliefs Don’t Change
by Alex Tsakiris | Jan 22 | Skepticism


Ed Opperman is a private investigator turned podcaster who changed my beliefs, but not his own.
photo by: Skeptiko
… today’s show is about changing your mind changing, your beliefs, but as often happens on these shows it turned into a something else. I mean, how else can you explain how I could go from this:
Alex Tsakiris: … [Ed] you seem to follow data wherever it leads. That’s what I care about. And that’s what I hear from your show. It’s awesome. It’s rare.
To this:
Ed Opperman: …well, I would end it there because, you want to change my mind, I don’t think it’s gonna happen. I don’t have to justify my faith to you. What’s your need to change my mind?
Alex Tsakiris: I get that it sounds like I’m desperate to change your mind, I’m really not. This is the Skeptiko process for me — follow the data wherever it leads. I see in you someone who’s following the data, and then when it comes to this topic it’s like, ‘no, I don’t really need to follow that data.’ I hear this all the time, people say ‘I’m a smart guy if that was true I would know it.’
So, this episode has a lot of layers to it and I’m tempted to pull them all apart and lay them all out and explain them, but I don’t really think that’s what you want, or what I want. I want to let you know up front that the episode has a lot of political flavor to it, but not for the sake of politics, this is an episode about what I used to believe, why I believed it, and I came to change those beliefs.
 
#3
The key being, following the inference hierarchy where it leads. Below are the types of inference, ranked from strongest to weakest.

Falsification
Deduction
Consilient Induction
Triangulating Induction
Linear Induction
Abduction
Panduction
Divine Revelation
Critical Thinking
Consensus

;)
 
#4
I haven't yet finished that podcast, and it made me feel depressed.

All I can say, is that if even a tiny bit of the stuff about Trump is true, he must have enormous leverage over the MSM - because one tiny bit of that would pull him down at once! Yet if he has that leverage, how come he doesn't rein in the MSM more generally - I don't get it!

As a non US citizen, a lot of that stuff rattled by me way too fast - people I had never heard of - however, if you are sure he is genuine, your idea of doing a joint exploration of 'climate change' would be an excellent idea.

I guess my bottom line is that even if Trump did all of that, it is 10^6 times less awful that politicians that get their kicks out of creating military tension and fighting unnecessary wars (possibly in addition to child abuse and stealing money donated to Haiti) - Tony Blair, Bush Jr, Obama, Hillary Clinton in the state department, and David Cameron.

David
 
#5
The key being, following the inference hierarchy where it leads. Below are the types of inference, ranked from strongest to weakest.

Falsification
Deduction
Consilient Induction
Triangulating Induction
Linear Induction
Abduction
Panduction
Divine Revelation
Critical Thinking
Consensus

;)
some great ones there... still working thru the list:
panduction is employed as a masquerade of science in the form of false deduction. Moreover it constitutes an artifice which establishes the purported truth of a favored hypothesis by means of the extraordinary claim of having falsified every competing idea in one felled swoop of rationality.
 
#7
So, Ed is conducting Triangulating Induction - in the scheme of things. Not bad, as this is better than what fake skeptics use. I enjoyed the interview and it certainly served to open my eyes. I will be watching for this more.

Regarding "I Just Follow the Data"

A. A saying we had in counter-intelligence: Data must be translated into Information, and Information must be transmuted into Intelligence - before you follow anything. Intelligence is the first level of epistemology you can act upon. Not data, not information... but you must frame it inside the inference imparted...

B. Investigators follow inference, not data. Evidence follows a critical path of inference. Inference is a house, intelligence is a plumbing/electrical system, data is a brick. Never conclude anything off of bricks. Because unless those bricks serve to falsify, they can be potentially misleading - This method is how we decided that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction - Triangulating Induction. Inference in order of strength:

Falsification​
Deduction​
Consilient Induction​
Triangulating Induction <--- Ed's Method
Linear Induction​
Abduction​
Panduction​
Divine Revelation​
Critical Thinking (divine revelation sans any divinity)​
Consensus (a plurality of critical thinkers)​

Triangulating Induction is what a navigator on a ship does. He takes a bearing-shot from three or more different sources, all of which are highly separated from each other, and then plots them on a well established reference (chart). Once those triangulation lines are then plotted - they will intersect at a specific location (hopefully) - i.e. pedophilia in this case. And there is your location (fix) - guilt by association and optics.

The Caution Around This Approach When Applied to Persons

Key: Your reference chart (associations with other bad people) must be flawless - and never change. If your reference is moving - then your solution is also moving and you many not know it. This form of inference is also vulnerable to the gain-boost biases of Richelieu's Law, Pathologizing and Agency:

Richelieu’s Law – given a sufficient quantity of statements of merit, actions or associations on the part of an individual, a case can be made that one of those things either serves to condemn that individual or runs anathema to the essence of all their other contentions (apparent hypocrisy). An exploitative coercive argument which proceeds along the lines of the Richeliean quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honest man and I will find in them something to hang him."​
Pathologizing – establishing a ‘halo of condemnation’ around a subject or person as a first step of deliberation inside a social context. A term framed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book Skin in the Game. It is what fake skeptics and other forms of poseur do to disliked subjects (‘pseudosciences’) and to persons (‘woo believer’) who research them. It is done when agency is at play:​
Agency - an activated, intentional and methodical form of bias, often generated by organization, membership, politics, hate or fear based agenda and disdain. Agency and bias are two different things. Ironically, agency can even tender the appearance of mitigating bias, as a method of its very insistence. One common but special form of agency, is the condition wherein it is concealed, and expresses through a denial/inverse negation masquerade called ideam tutela.​
ideam tutela – concealed agency. A questionable idea or religious belief which is surreptitiously promoted through an inverse negation. A position which is concealed by an arguer because of their inability to defend it, yet is protected at all costs without its mention – often through attacking without sound basis, every other form of opposing idea.​
There are no larger agencies than Christianity and Socialism. Although they can entail good things, be very very careful when those two are mixed in the mind of an investigator, as they are both cathedrals of virtue - especially if many noteworthy persons are condemned all in one felled swoop and inside one research avenue. Or names are condemned in batches inside a subject which they admit to also having not researched at all (UFO's).

Oh yes, and this form of visa is an H-1B visa, not an 'HB-1 visa'. Just a minor point on that detailed investigative path he was pursuing.

Good show Alex! ;;/?
 
Last edited:
#8
Alex's question/s at the end of the show aren't included above, which is a pity. How much do we dig, and how does that impact our personal spirituality are important questions.

I have just spent a month of my annual leave escaping the heat and listening to 6 audiobooks on Trump and related themes, plus a bunch of other lines of inquiry (that's 10 books all told in the past 2 months). As an Australian I don't have any personal skin in the game, but here is a drama about power, ambition and integrity (and other things) that makes me want to reanimate Shakespeare.

Seems to me that we can inquire to the satisfaction of our prejudices and think we have built a foundation upon which to stake intellectual and moral territory that is consistent with what we already know we believe. A lot of people do that - and stand on one side of the polarising tension.

It is necessary, if one is to live in a functioning democracy, that we assess those who aspire to power, notionally on our behalf, in a bipartisan way. That is how is used to be, so it seems. Now our assessments are disturbingly self-referential. Because of that those who would lead us see no reason to be moral. We permit conceits and delusions in the formation of our own values and beliefs, and claim the right to such indulgence - and we are surprised when the power seekers mirror that same value set?

I heard recently that some think that the narcissistic personality disorder should not be considered a disorder, because it can be a successful strategy. The fact that the same can be said of psychopathy may not have been noticed. But while Trump has been called a narcissistic megalomaniac, we must remember that, as Michael D'Antonio observed in The Truth About Trump, he is a man of his age and times. The are now many books noting the heightened self-centredness of our culture. The American reality created Trump and bore him, Venus-like, to the shores of fame or infamy. He is saviour and demon.

My preferred explanation is that Trump is the Trickster spirit that has arisen from the American psyche to freak it out and shock it into a new consciousness. But to get that you have to know the Trickster. And, as well, you need to know something of the layers of culture, psychology, sociology, economics, politics - and that's even before you get into the spiritual, mythic and metaphysical dimension. Of course you can just go with your gut and cook up something that sounds as if its rational, thought through and has all the markers of a really good instance of virtue signalling - and be done with it. That's easier and quicker and serves the superficial purposes that are so popular now.

I know the net is awash with allegations of wholesale depravity that are gravely declared to be true. Whether it is true or not is another matter. Actually confirming truth or otherwise to a sufficient degree strikes me as being immensely difficult. The choice of deciding to believe people who say they have proven the matter is, for me, not one I am comfortable making. I don't like vesting that much power in another person. I'd rather deal with a variety of well-credential researchers, rather than a mere handful.

The next question is - does it matter? Even a fair student of history must see that dishonesty and depravity are commonplace. The passion for 'exposing' these ills can seem like shattering revelations are spilling forth in a great exposure of the immorality of a culture. For me, in reality, there are multiple games being played on our Earthly stage, and they intersect from time to time. But that does not mean we go haring off to join another game. I don't think we need the grand denouements of gross depravity as our triggers for moral reflection. The small depravities, the ones we can influence, should be enough to give us reason to act on what we can influence and change.

I suspect the the grand depravities distract and weaken us. Allegations of rampant child rape and satanism may be true, but those evils stand on the shoulders of the small ones we permit as 'harmless' or okay because (insert your excuse). Maybe Trump did get on Epstein's plane, but is that your deal breaker with him? New York's passion for the witless celeb culture gave him credibility he did not deserve. The real breakers were a long time ago - but too few people saw them.

When we engage with the lifestyles of then rich and fatuous we start the process of decay into distraction and weakening. Now these mega crimes are delivering a coup de gras - sucking the life out of any remaining capacity to protest and resist. The time and energy put into following them on YouTube can be put to better use. We must have a presumption of dirty game - and know its not ours to play - and draw the boundaries accordingly.

Our actions and thoughts ripple out from where we are. That's the logic of the old saying - think globally, act locally. The dirty game is being played on the same ground we occupy. Our spiritual duty/obligation is to reject the premises that let it enter our game. Trump is where he is because of both love and hate. Each is a false premise and must be rejected.
 
#9
Inference is a house, intelligence is a plumbing/electrical system, data is a brick.
I get your point, and I'm to blame for using the term data so loosely.... then again, I love the catch-phrase :)

It may help to hone in... which question were looking into:
- Epstein
- Dershowitz (hope somebody picks up on this because I think it's super interesting. allow me to tip my hand:
Alan Dershowitz Says Martha's Vineyard Is 'Shunning' Him Over Trump)
- Trump
- Josephus
- Climategate
- Jacques Vallee
- Satanic Ritual Abuse (Satanic Panic?)
- something else...

allow me to offer a jumping off point... among the Cesspool of lies and denials I found this testimony compelling/believable:
 
Last edited:
#10
Alex's question/s at the end of the show aren't included above, which is a pity. How much do we dig, and how does that impact our personal spirituality are important questions.

I have just spent a month of my annual leave escaping the heat and listening to 6 audiobooks on Trump and related themes, plus a bunch of other lines of inquiry (that's 10 books all told in the past 2 months). As an Australian I don't have any personal skin in the game, but here is a drama about power, ambition and integrity (and other things) that makes me want to reanimate Shakespeare.

Seems to me that we can inquire to the satisfaction of our prejudices and think we have built a foundation upon which to stake intellectual and moral territory that is consistent with what we already know we believe. A lot of people do that - and stand on one side of the polarising tension.

It is necessary, if one is to live in a functioning democracy, that we assess those who aspire to power, notionally on our behalf, in a bipartisan way. That is how is used to be, so it seems. Now our assessments are disturbingly self-referential. Because of that those who would lead us see no reason to be moral. We permit conceits and delusions in the formation of our own values and beliefs, and claim the right to such indulgence - and we are surprised when the power seekers mirror that same value set?

I heard recently that some think that the narcissistic personality disorder should not be considered a disorder, because it can be a successful strategy. The fact that the same can be said of psychopathy may not have been noticed. But while Trump has been called a narcissistic megalomaniac, we must remember that, as Michael D'Antonio observed in The Truth About Trump, he is a man of his age and times. The are now many books noting the heightened self-centredness of our culture. The American reality created Trump and bore him, Venus-like, to the shores of fame or infamy. He is saviour and demon.

My preferred explanation is that Trump is the Trickster spirit that has arisen from the American psyche to freak it out and shock it into a new consciousness. But to get that you have to know the Trickster. And, as well, you need to know something of the layers of culture, psychology, sociology, economics, politics - and that's even before you get into the spiritual, mythic and metaphysical dimension. Of course you can just go with your gut and cook up something that sounds as if its rational, thought through and has all the markers of a really good instance of virtue signalling - and be done with it. That's easier and quicker and serves the superficial purposes that are so popular now.

I know the net is awash with allegations of wholesale depravity that are gravely declared to be true. Whether it is true or not is another matter. Actually confirming truth or otherwise to a sufficient degree strikes me as being immensely difficult. The choice of deciding to believe people who say they have proven the matter is, for me, not one I am comfortable making. I don't like vesting that much power in another person. I'd rather deal with a variety of well-credential researchers, rather than a mere handful.

The next question is - does it matter? Even a fair student of history must see that dishonesty and depravity are commonplace. The passion for 'exposing' these ills can seem like shattering revelations are spilling forth in a great exposure of the immorality of a culture. For me, in reality, there are multiple games being played on our Earthly stage, and they intersect from time to time. But that does not mean we go haring off to join another game. I don't think we need the grand denouements of gross depravity as our triggers for moral reflection. The small depravities, the ones we can influence, should be enough to give us reason to act on what we can influence and change.

I suspect the the grand depravities distract and weaken us. Allegations of rampant child rape and satanism may be true, but those evils stand on the shoulders of the small ones we permit as 'harmless' or okay because (insert your excuse). Maybe Trump did get on Epstein's plane, but is that your deal breaker with him? New York's passion for the witless celeb culture gave him credibility he did not deserve. The real breakers were a long time ago - but too few people saw them.

When we engage with the lifestyles of then rich and fatuous we start the process of decay into distraction and weakening. Now these mega crimes are delivering a coup de gras - sucking the life out of any remaining capacity to protest and resist. The time and energy put into following them on YouTube can be put to better use. We must have a presumption of dirty game - and know its not ours to play - and draw the boundaries accordingly.

Our actions and thoughts ripple out from where we are. That's the logic of the old saying - think globally, act locally. The dirty game is being played on the same ground we occupy. Our spiritual duty/obligation is to reject the premises that let it enter our game. Trump is where he is because of both love and hate. Each is a false premise and must be rejected.
questions... from machine generate transcript:
92:18 – 92:23 break that trend and the one question
92:19 – 92:26 that I up is is it worth it trying to
92:23 – 92:29 find the truth
when it comes to these
92:26 – 92:33 when it comes to these highly charged
92:29 – 92:37 public political expose kind of things
92:33 – 92:39 is this an area that we should just
92:37 – 92:41 avoid because we know it’s going to be
92:39 – 92:45 so fraught with misinformation
92:41 – 92:47 disinformation differing opinions that
92:45 – 92:50 are going to upset people should we just
92:47 – 92:51 bypass the whole thing completely or
92:50 – 92:54 some of these questions and some of
92:51 – 92:56 these facts about our leaders so
92:54 – 92:59 important that we should try and dig for
92:56 – 93:01 these answers so there are a couple of
92:59 – 93:04 questions and I guess I’d add one more I
93:01 – 93:08 said one question but it’s a bunch how
93:04 – 93:12 does this relate to your personal
93:08 – 93:15 spirituality to what extent can these
93:12 – 93:19 questions allow us to better understand
93:15 – 93:21 what we should do
 
#11
Thanks for this excellent post Michael. much for me to respectfully disagree with :)

Seems to me that we can inquire to the satisfaction of our prejudices and think we have built a foundation upon which to stake intellectual and moral territory that is consistent with what we already know we believe. A lot of people do that - and stand on one side of the polarising tension.
I guess I'd ask what moral territory you're talking about? I mean, some people seem to get really worked out about the morality of immigration policy. I'm not saying there aren't moral issues there, but I think it's entirely different than what we were talking about in the show. even regarding sexual misconduct I think it's important to separate moral issues question from "Evil." a guy cheating on his wife during a Las Vegas sales conf seems very different than ritual satanic abuse, but don't ask me to explain how.

It is necessary, if one is to live in a functioning democracy, that we assess those who aspire to power, notionally on our behalf, in a bipartisan way.
I think that's pretty much out the window. by the way have you seen this excellent documentary from James Corbett?

My preferred explanation is that Trump is the Trickster spirit
I don't totally buy this. I mean, where's the evidence for it. then again, I'm also not sure I'm totally down with Hansen's explanation of his discovery. I mean, love the general "trickster" idea, but when I hear him talk it often sounds like nonsense.
 
Last edited:
#12
All I can say, is that if even a tiny bit of the stuff about Trump is true, he must have enormous leverage over the MSM - because one tiny bit of that would pull him down at once! Yet if he has that leverage, how come he doesn't rein in the MSM more generally - I don't get it!
This is the bit I really do not understand (sorry for quoting myself).

To expand slightly, if even 1 minute of the podcast discussion about Trump could actually be proved, I'd have thought he would be toast. MSM reporters scoured the globe for sleaze on Trump, and had to make do with a 10-year old recording of him describing his (rather impractical) seduction technique.

Are you sure you are not being had, Alex - can you verify any part of it properly?

David
 
#13
It is necessary, if one is to live in a functioning democracy, that we assess those who aspire to power, notionally on our behalf, in a bipartisan way.
I'm not sure why this is "out the window" as you stated Alex.

We're living in a tribal social/political construct today. A majority of people in the U.S. with whom I interact seem to take the evaluation of any political figure as a simple binary exercise: Assigning them to a tribe. What the political figure actually believes, does, or even says is completely ignored. I believe this is what Michael meant by NOT being bipartisan. For me it would be more aptly stated as not being so utterly tribal.

There is just no ground for any of us to stand on for a meaningful, productive dialogue. I think that can change. Whether it does is another question.
 
#14
This is the bit I really do not understand (sorry for quoting myself).

To expand slightly, if even 1 minute of the podcast discussion about Trump could actually be proved, I'd have thought he would be toast. MSM reporters scoured the globe for sleaze on Trump, and had to make do with a 10-year old recording of him describing his (rather impractical) seduction technique.

Are you sure you are not being had, Alex - can you verify any part of it properly?

David
did you have a chance to watch the YouTube videos I referenced?
 
#15
did you have a chance to watch the YouTube videos I referenced?
I watched the one involving Virginia Roberts. It was at least gratifying that she seems to have turned her life around.

However, Trump was only mentioned tangentially as the owner of the estate. I think I'd want (or rather not want!) something a bit closer to him as evidence that he condoned what was going on or even participated.

We should bear in mind that there may be people shit stirring against Trump.

If this is true, why do you think that the MSM - desperate to find real dirt to attack Trump - don't touch it with a barge pole? One answer might be that it incriminates too many other people, do you think that is the reason?

David
 
#16
I watched the one involving Virginia Roberts. It was at least gratifying that she seems to have turned her life around.
I agree... good to see that she seems to have turned her life around. as you know from looking into this Dark World it's quite rare. most who are exposed-to/victimized-by this evil at a young age never recover. it's devastating... soul-crushing.

so do you believe her story? all of it, some of it? if it rings true to you as it does to me then what are we to make of Epstein? what are we to make of Ghislaine Maxwell? what about Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz? is his denial/story believable? who's telling the truth because there's no way to reconcile the two stories? can we ever figure it out? should we try? innocent until proven guilty? overwhelming evidence in the court of public opinion?

I feel like we have to answer these questions before we can even begin to look at the alleged associations between these players and folks like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and so many others.



Trump... and his reps have said he barely knew Epstein—even though New York media in the ’90s regularly chronicled his comings-and-goings at Epstein’s Upper East Side palace, and even though Epstein had 14 private numbers for Trump and his family in his little black book. Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary Clinton have remained mum about their ties to the Palm Beach pedophile—despite evidence that shows Bill was one of the most famous and frequent passengers on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” and that Epstein donated money to the Clinton Foundation even after his conviction.
The Billionaire Pedophile Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and ...
 
#17
I really enjoyed this episode, possibly because I could understand where Ed was coming from and I’m interested in most of the material. I found it quite interesting when Alex prodded him a little about his religious beliefs, and the UFO stuff too. There is usually (always?) something about people we admire that we like that we find frustrating or kind of disappointing. Or perhaps that’s just me? For example Alex, at the time of the forum closures here on Skeptiko, I found your behaviour strange, I couldn’t understand it at all at the time, still don’t. Now I have mostly forgotten the detail, but remember that you’re not the person I thought you were before that happened. Does it matter to me? No, it’s just part of ‘my’ picture. I guess that Ed’s beliefs are part of your’s? (And mine) I appreciate it when people can keep talking instead of getting offended. Though I’m possibly guilty myself, I’m human. If I am, consider me disappointed with myself!

It’s really not a surprise to me that Trump is a sleaze-ball, I was exactly with Ed when I saw that this was his opinion too (but the Clintons are even worse!). David (Bailey) finds himself struggling to accept this about Trump, who I know he supports. I find this most interesting. I can’t understand how anyone can support such a character. ‘Following the facts’ has led us to totally different conclusions.

One thing that I’d like to say is that it’s much more difficult to prove, even to yourself, that the esoteric topics that we look at, are real. I think that when it comes to NDEs, Ghosts, UFOs etc, including religious beliefs, I think it often comes down to something more like faith. We can have more or less certainty about such things, but I now think that it comes down to us alone, as individuals, as to what we feel in our hearts. Intuition? I think it’s much easier to try to convince others about things that are known to both of us as ‘real’, like money, sex, greed, and things that are accepted in science. These most of us can understand. Even though our biases may make us refuse to accept even these earthly things, when what is claimed goes against any more solid thinking. ‘Trump just can’t be a ...whatever’, ‘9/11 couldn’t have been an inside job’, ‘All these abductees must be making it up!’ etc.

I would have liked to hear Alex ask Ed what he thought about 9/11 and Vaxx, but there’s always next time. I’ll check out Ed’s website. Thanks to Alex and Ed. ;;/?
 
#18
I agree... good to see that she seems to have turned her life around. as you know from looking into this Dark World it's quite rare. most who are exposed-to/victimized-by this evil at a young age never recover. it's devastating... soul-crushing.
I would tend to believe her
so do you believe her story? all of it, some of it? if it rings true to you as it does to me then what are we to make of Epstein? what are we to make of Ghislaine Maxwell? what about Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz? is his denial/story believable? who's telling the truth because there's no way to reconcile the two stories? can we ever figure it out? should we try? innocent until proven guilty? overwhelming evidence in the court of public opinion?
It obviously reflects very badly indeed on Epstein - and we know that he was involved in such things - hence his signing the sex offenders register.
I feel like we have to answer these questions before we can even begin to look at the alleged associations between these players and folks like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and so many others.
Well it may be a fallacy to assume that everyone connected with Epstein is evil. Prince Andrew has a terrible reputation - I can believe he was involved in all of it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#Sex_abuse_allegations

Right now she has a wonderful opportunity to finger Donald Trump if she really wants to. The MSM would pay anything to get hold of dirt like that - and even more had she acted shortly before the election. However you know, I wonder, someone like Juanita Broaddrick probably knows a fair bit of the sleazy side of US public life - and suffered from it, yet she was willing to appear with Donald Trump at one stage in his Presidential campaign. Maybe Trump got close enough to see clearly what was going on, and this fired him up to fight.

Maybe you should write to the guy and ask him ;)

David
 
Last edited:
#19
David (Bailey) finds himself struggling to accept this about Trump, who I know he supports. I find this most interesting. I can’t understand how anyone can support such a character. ‘Following the facts’ has led us to totally different conclusions.
I want to make sure the man isn't damned by association. How can I support such a character? Well:

He may have prevented a major war with Russia.

I agree with him and Alex that Climate Change is a hoax perpetrated on the poor - so I applaud his withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

He may have found a way to defuse the NK crisis.

He sees the folly of political correctness.

I generally support his trade policy.

I very, very much hope he has not been involved in child sexual exploitation of any sort.

David
 
#20
what about Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz? is his denial/story believable? who's telling the truth because there's no way to reconcile the two stories?
I had known about Dershowitz because I am a fan of Norman Finkelstein and had heard him debate with Dershowitz on YouTube. I would say that one of them is far more honest than the other, here is a video of Noam Chomsky being interviewed about them both.

 
Top