Anyone else confused about how these bombs are actually detonating? Articles say they are detonating via a text message sent 3x in error, theoretically causing either a spark or a “closed circuit” like a different article explained. The article (from al jazeera) says they have to look at the message but there’s video of one igniting in a bag.

I’m curious because I think these pagers may actually constitute a public safety risk, similar to how heavily landmined areas risk exploding even decades later on someone unrelated to the initial conflict.

They should be charged an emissions tax and worker safety tax since driving to/from work is one of the leading causes of death for working adults

Eggs Benedict with a perfect lemony Hollandaise

I’m feeling pretty good rn for myself, she really looks off. She’s similar looking to the Kimberly Guilfoyle lady (55) and Lauren Sánchez (54)

Well, agree to disagree then.

I never stated there was ultimate truth.

Fallacies are intrinsic to philosophy, so much so they are incorporated into the legal system, math, and sciences.

Bad faith is important all the time, not just during a debate. How many people would be in cults if they understood bad faith arguments? It would also be harder to scam people because most scams are also based on bad faith arguments.

philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.

Yes, and that structured, “valid” manner has to do with logic, rationale, and fallacies. Fallacies are a failure of rationale or logic. They describe philosophical failures. I also disagree “philosophy is just a means to an end.”

On the z axis, a rock thrown exhibits the same downward forces as a rock dropped. If you took physics and calculus, you might know that.

Bipedal motion is a little different than what dragonflies are doing, which is predictive math with an extremely high success rate.

No, kids are taught that it’s a fallacy. If your parents explained it as “it’s not polite,” rather than “it’s nonsense,” that’s on your education. But it already sounds like you personally dislike learning about fallacies and are now projecting it onto me and the entire subject of philosophy rather than acknowledging I have validity (and I do, as I’ve been entirely consistent - unless you think you know some kind of ultimate truth that should dictate how others believe).

By ‘previous information,’ what you meant originally and what I was addressing was previous formal philosophical info. Your original claim was that fallacies were too complex to teach to everyone. My point is that even children understand fallacies. It’s not amd was never about whether you need language to understand communication, don’t make up stupid stuff. Obviously if someone can’t communicate at all, they would not take a course in any subject including logic and fallacies. Focus on your point and argue it. If you lose, maybe just accept that you’re neglecting some education here in terms of fallacies and arguments.

it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully

like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.

This is NOT what you said. Scroll up. Look at my first comment to you about this subject. You’ve spent days arguing against this.

Here’s my first comment to you, which you disagreed with:

Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌

Your response:

i feel like fallacies are a bit of a golden goose, if you’re educated in the field of fallacies, you’re basically just educated in the field of debate, being educated in philosophy is going to allow you to generically recognize these fallacies, though without being able to identify them, as well as all of the additional benefits of engaging in philosophy (like understanding the concept of worldviews)

another problem with fallacy, is that you can also just kinda, make shit up. Or accuse people of doing the same fallacy you’re doing, it’s sort of cyclic in nature like that. It’s interesting in theoretical thought though, i’ll give you that one

But honestly, THANK YOU for demonstrating how properly identifying and refusing to accept fallacies wins an argument. I got you to change your mind according to your own comments. Maybe you should find fallacies a little less boring 🤷🏼‍♀️ Wouldn’t have lost if you were arguing from a strong, rational position. Instead you were being reactive because it was about a subject you struggle in and find boring, by your own admission.

No, I chose my words precisely here:

How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith?

Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?

Yes, those different frameworks are considered philosophically relevant nd valid because they are consistent, rational, and do not generally involve fallacies. That’s entirely WHY we teach Nihilism and not some random rant from an incoherent person.

Philosophy and math are intrinsically tied together.

Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?

The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.

Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.

Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.

I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.

With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”

Healthcare for all makes sense in NUMEROUS WAYS and they won’t give us that

The thing is, fallacies do matter because they are meant to describe what is not “good faith” argumentation. They are sophistry. It’s like, the basis of our modern western philosophy, and our current legal system. How can a student tell if a philosophy is valid if they don’t even know if it’s logically consistent or argued in good faith? They don’t even know what good faith is. Fallacies are the basic arithmetic of philosophy. It’s like having students memorize math problems without ever connecting math to the real world, and then expecting those kids to actually be math literate. You can’t do it. You’re neglecting fundamental (and I mean that word emphatically) knowledge.

It’s like mental gardening. The ability to recognize and respond to fallacies in our own internal thinking helps us stay organized within our own minds and not fall victim to traps or scams.

No, fallacies are not something that you just accuse another person of. An ad hominem attack is a specific thing. A strawman is a specific thing. Yes, fallacies can be quite complicated to identify and understand (eg appeal to authority) - but that’s okay. It’s okay to learn a complicated subject.

Sometimes though, when people don’t want to do that hard mental load of learning fallacies (because they’d have to change their own mind regarding many of their own fallacies and heuristics), they dismiss fallacies and say “meh, but I don’t wanna!” That doesn’t invalidate learning about them.

I emailed Trump and Biden both about implementing a free national online school prek-college, using adaptive learning and with no time restrictions. Kids can use this online school as a supplement to regular schooling or in lieu of. This way, parents who are concerned about school shootings or illness can still feel like their kid is getting an okay education.

Adults who have already graduated can take these classes to refresh knowledge (helping to combat misinformation online). If Christians want to teach and learn Christian theory, fine, that can be in a Christian theory area (Christian science should not be considered actual science but instead a theology).

Teachers can compete for best online class and schools and teachers could get bonuses for the most popular material. The grading should be done by either a computer or paras who are employed at the national level.

Students then can also have access to various language accomodations and disability accomodations for all their lessons. This is also why there should be no time restrictions - kids with learning disabilities might take a year to learn a half semester of algebra, or young adults with jobs might also need extra time too. The time limits we place on learning are arbitrary and only help out people with advantages already.

Last there should be no general studies requirement with the adaptive online learning. If a kid LOVES trains, let the adaptive learning teach them all about trains. Maybe that means the kid will learn about calculating the impact speed of two trains colliding, so they incidentally learn math and physics. But we shouldn’t require they learn math and physics if they don’t choose to.

Anyway, I wrote this out to them and got really lame letters back too. It’s crazy because this school idea is a legacy program that could cement a president’s name forever in education, like how Teddy Roosevelt is associated with National Parks. Yet Trump didn’t want the idea. Biden neither. Maybe Harris will like it. It’s quite elegant imo and win/win. I’ve spoken with numerous educators about it and they have no criticisms. It’s like our government doesn’t want progress

Just need courses on logic and fallacies and that would be 🤌

As someone who farmed for the first couple of decades of my life - no. We need to utilize drones for farming and ban the use of tires and fossil fuels (which deposit heavy metals) on fields.

Also pretty sure glyphosate/Roundup caused health issues for everyone I know and myself (all farmers/in farm communities). It’s a neurotoxin and is in the entire Ogallala acquifer and most ground water around farms and their watershed. I spoke with a lead state toxicologist in the PNW about this. It verifiably has effects on fish and insects in the watershed here (which Monsanto claims is too diluted to have effects).

What books specifically would you recommend?

What would you replace campaigning with? Or what would a ban look like to you?

I mean no, that’s not “listening” to me. That’s not what I said. That’s in fact a strawman.

You are allowed to feel uncomfortable and frustrated. That’s how you learn tolerance and patience. It’s okay to be frustrated. Try edging or ruining your orgasm some time. You won’t die from it.

Yes, the entire point is that NO ONE should have huge amounts of power. Your power should be relatively small. Why do you personally get to dictate bike lanes?

Socialism doesn’t “create” communities, it empowers them. Those communities already exist in the workplace. The difference is who is granted power in government.

It’s not capitalism that grants better “scaling,” it’s that our government is modeled after old Roman laws which are all rooted in military structure. Our government functions like this due to ancient restrictions with communication (before cars and electricity) and due to the warlike nature of western/Roman society and all Abrahamic religions. The entire point of sacrificing Abraham is to convince people to send their sons off to war. Jesus is about sending your son off to war. If we want a peaceful society we have to structure ourselves like one and not like we are actively inflamed and wanting to attack others.

Governments are whatever people want to agree to as a collective. The reason democracy and anarchy “fail” to our military trained eyes, is because people can decline or disrupt government at smaller scale. This is a good thing unless you want to mobilize against another country. Hard to force a 19 year old to shoot another 19 year old if they can just wall away and still get things like food and healthcare.

Okay that’s fair about plutocracy vs oligarchy (I wasn’t the person originally arguing with you). And fair about campaigning. Thank you

It’s not about frustrating or trolling people though. It’s about seizing power granted to you by law

So how is that situation an argument against people running for office? Like jobs are meant to be challenging and work, it’s not like being elected then grants you a magic wand to seamlessly solve issues.

Can you explain more?

First, I’m not a liberal by any definition. A democratic socialist isn’t a liberal and if you think so, you’re uneducated or just ad hominem attacking. Either way, null.

There are options, it’s just difficult to implement them. The Black Panthers were doing it. The first step is having community as its base.

I live in a place with a lot of “undesirable” folks. I don’t want to see my community here get hurt because I didn’t do anything. And ofc I don’t want to be hurt either.

Voting does grant power. If it did nothing, then they’d allow felons to vote. They wouldn’t engage in voter suppression. If leftist organizing didn’t work, they wouldn’t have imprisoned people like The Black Panthers. We actually know it indeed does and will work BECAUSE the state responds violently. Even in Russia, where the votes don’t matter, someone like Navalny is a threat.

Don’t be a coward. Vote. You can still organize for other stuff too while voting.