Having read their comment, probably “because every Democrat didn’t 100% say “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine”, then now all Democrats are evil and should never be supported.”
That’s them observing progressives disagree with a party stance then refuse to vote for the party over that single issue. The extrapolation is that progressives are more likely to become single issue voters, therefore more difficult to cater to, therefore maybe not worth the effort from the party’s perspective.
I looked into why protein is so popular right now, and the main thing I can see is that protein takes a while to break down, leaving you feeling fuller longer and making it easier to eat less. The problem with that is most people (Americans at least) already eat way more protein than they need. In almost every case people would be better served by eating more fiber or replacing processed grains with whole grains, both of which achieve a similar effect while also actually aiding the digestive system. But the HHS as it is today isn’t interested in that, so they just increased the recommended amount of protein instead.
It’s so nice of her to open her mouth that much so the cat and get to work with the floss he’s been maintaining!
I often think of myself as a lesbian. hits blunt
What do you think is more likely, religious people disliking you for your atheism or because you literally call them psychotic?
Being anglophones is also why they do so much fishing in Britain!
Yes it is. Out of curiosity, how many miles of range do you tend to get charging overnight? I’ve read that it’s about 20 miles per 12 hours, which for me would not be enough to cover my commute.
What do you mean when you use the word “epistemologies” in this context?
I’d go back and save Sergei Korolev from dying in 1966, leading Soviet cosmonauts to land on the moon first and keeping the space race kicking for far far longer.
Yes, I just started watching For All Mankind, what tipped you off?
And you think that’s what he means when he also mentions being in office in 2032 in the same sentence?
I usually just say “I feel like the people who are good at adulting don’t use the term ‘adulting’” and get a “yeah, that sounds about right” in return.
I reject the assumption that there’ll never be such a thing.
Yeah, that all lines up with what I’ve read. The philosopher William Clifford argued that we should ensure certainty of all beliefs, his example being ensuring you have a JTB that a sailing ship is seaworthy before putting it out to sea. William James later argued that, while justification is important, the passion for truth should outweigh the fear of being wrong.
Reading On Epistemology, I learned the term conscientious belief, or a belief that one holds while acknowledging the possibility of it being wrong. In practice, I think that translates belief to mean something you act on or live your life as though it is true until finding a reason to reconsider. It still requires accepting that fear of uncertainty though.
Wait, is that what astroturfing refers to?! That makes so much sense now.
On top of what has already been said, some advice based on personal experience; if you plan to wear the watch, check what the watch face material is and avoid bio-ceramic. My first mechanical watch had a few big scratches within a few months which was kind of disappointing.
What do you think idealism and materialism mean when you use them?
I’m not debating whether the philosopher is fooled by the background, but whether they would decide they could properly justify holding a belief that you are using a digital background or not in the first place, knowing that digital backgrounds exist. I suppose if they had seen your room in person to know what it looks like, seen one video instance where the digital background had a door open and then you altered the render for the next meeting to have the door shut, that may convince the philosopher to believe that they are looking at actual footage of your background.
But at that point, the philosopher would have a justified false belief that they are looking at your background, rather than the unjustified true belief that it is a digital render of the same background.
This where I stop addressing you directly and start rambling about my feelings on the topic at large. Having read Gettier’s original paper as well as Elizabeth Zagzebski’s On Epistemology which discusses justified true belief (JTB) and feeling strongly enough to get a short paper published on the matter, I think people generally have an unhealthy fear of holding justified false beliefs. In Zagzebski’s book she lays out a few modern attempts to “fix” JTB, and I can’t remember the term for any of them because they all boil down to JTB, but with an extra word affixed to the front that means making sure you really justify your belief. But any attempt to justify your justification is really just a form of justification and therefore already part of the J of JTB. Sometimes you can do everything right and still end up wrong.
But knowing that zoom backgrounds exist, would a properly conscientious philosopher hold a belief on whether it is the real background?
I would consider this to be two separate, semi-related concepts asserted together, one that consciousness is an illusion, and one that you are a different person each day.
The first point draws many questions; consciousness is an illusion of what? What mechanism causes the illusion? How does it cause it? Why does the illusion exist? And you may note that you could replace illusion in those questions with consciousness and be left in a similar (though still distinct) place. So simply calling consciousness an illusion seems to me to kick the can down the road without actually addressing the problem.
As for being a different person after a lapse in awareness, I’d like to take it a step further and say that you could be considered a new person with every change in moment. It’s easy enough to look back 10 years and say “yeah, that’s a younger me, but they’re not the same as me I can just see the path that led to where I am now.” Getting closer, you may feel different today compared to yesterday depending on various factors (sleep, diet, events), but are you a different person because you slept and had a lapse of awareness, or because the state of your mind and thoughts have shifted? When your internal monologue (or equivalent thought) asks “what is this guy talking about?” Is it not thinking “what” in a brand new context given the words it is responding to, forming a new beginning to a thought that puts the mind in a unique state primed to then enter a new state of “is?” And if the mind is in a unique state of novelty, could the person attached to the mind be considered distinct from the person that existed before?
There is a reason the word revelation exists, it indicates when a person has a novel thought that changes their perspective or way of thinking, altering who they are. Would they not be a new person despite being aware of the process of their change? Due to the above points I don’t think new personhood only occurs at sleep, but constantly. The rate of change may quicken or slow, but the change is always there.
No, I saw you ask why RamenJunkie would believe that progressives are single issue voters (as in “will not vote for a candidate because of one issue”) when, in their previous comment, they had already pointed to the support of Israel as an example of progressives not voting for a candidate over one issue. I found it annoying that you either ignored or missed that and asked a question for information sitting in front of you, so I copy and pasted a key piece of that information to hopefully get you considering how the arguments contained in one comment you responded to might relate to your question for a later one. It seems I may have failed at that.
Personally, I don’t know that truly single issue voters exist. I think there’s a lot of frustration with the complacency of the Democrat party and supporting genocide is just the straw that broke the camel’s back for a lot of people.
But my view was not the motivation for my comment, just my frustration with circular questioning.