adeptus0.bsky.social
The flesh is weak but it’s all I got
995 posts
145 followers
78 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The anti left vanguard of the Republican Party will not move the Overton window away from their parent organizations preferred set of policies. Why would you want them to go against something they’re designed to enable?
comment in response to
post
Truth Nuke^
comment in response to
post
Infamous or dishonored
comment in response to
post
@jessesingal.com thanks to hard work and honest reporting of gumshoe journalists like singal, a real change is taking place in this country! You’ve really advanced the project of sensible legislation and human rights Jesse, and here’s the proof! All of your hard work is paying off!
comment in response to
post
How does it feel to know that if you and everyone who thought like you were dead tomorrow the rest of humanity would be living in a utopia by the day after?
comment in response to
post
Through white Jesus all airplanes will land safely at the Miami airport.
comment in response to
post
Also go ahead and screenshot the book title cause I’m blocking u soon. Sorry I lied about u being able to @ me in the future but it turns out you’re quite unpleasant and a bit repellant.
comment in response to
post
Nah I’ve done so over and over and you made attempts, again born of your confusion, to refute them. Those attempts were not properly undertaken. That’s all. Nothing more serious than that.
comment in response to
post
A specific book that would allow you some relief from your debilitating ignorance on this particular subject. You taking offense to that isn’t really something I care about sorry.
comment in response to
post
Still no reasoning whatsoever. Just aspersions that I pity you for making. You notice everyone else has just treated you with the kind of flippant disdain you earn yourself by being this much of pseudo intellectual? I actually bothered to try and better you. Which you don’t really deserve but eh.
comment in response to
post
Like I said man you’re not really capable of having this discussion so I’m just gonna go ahead and call it here. Maybe someday though u can @ me after you’ve better equipped yourself on these topics.
comment in response to
post
Yeah I mean u keep saying that and not providing me any reason to accept it so I’ll just move on. Like I said: introduction to formal logic with philosophical applications by Russell Marcus. Just go ahead and read up on some of this stuff so you don’t remain quite so ignorant and incapable. Okay?
comment in response to
post
Yeah I mean at this point you’re just literally asking me to give you the lecture I said you needed earlier and I’m not rly interested in that. I’ll go ahead and recommend you Russel Marcus’ introduction to formal logic with philosophical applications. It’s a very 101 textbook but thats where ur at.
comment in response to
post
Oh and by the way, just to continue to provide you with desperately needed education: premises never “automatically” lead to conclusions. The process by which that happens is called deduction. So what you wanted to say there is that the premises do not deduce to the conclusion. Just a lil tip.
comment in response to
post
Okay I mean this is just a purely bad faith comment. I’ll go ahead and ignore it and give you another chance or you can try and defend it and refine your language. But it’s in no way a fact. You’re just projecting your lack of justification onto me, hilariously, in response to justification. lol.
comment in response to
post
Just to provide an example: it’s logically possible that the earth does not exist. Now we can play in that theoretical, logically possible sandbox as much as you’d like. But what we’d be incorrect to do, is try to extrapolate policy positions on Israel given such a world. Do I need to explain why?
comment in response to
post
Logically possible simply means non contradictory. It doesn’t change contextually. Surely based on that definition you see the folly in applying a framework like that to discussions about the real world we all live in yes?
comment in response to
post
Yeah it’s not true because the concept of degrees as I’ve invoked is in no way contradictory to the notion that there could be only one singular thing that is of a sufficient degree to produce a given result. In so far as that is true my premise holds true. If you’d like to refute that please do.
comment in response to
post
More so than simple logical or nomic possibility would be fantastic. Considering how utterly useless both concepts are to geopolitics. You do understand how useless and idiotic it would be to discuss pure logical possibility in terms of dissecting the implications of real world things yes?
comment in response to
post
Discussion*
comment in response to
post
We agreed on no such thing, and as a matter of fact. When I made the argument you didn’t even refute it. You just said that because I made some mention of “degree” it couldn’t be the only option. Which is of course also not true.
comment in response to
post
How many times have you been asked to explain that just because something is logically possible it’s somehow worthy of consideration in a discount about geopolitics? It’s imbecilic.
comment in response to
post
What do you mean looked into it? What’s the ‘it’ there? So what if whatever source you said didn’t mention the thing being discussed in specific? If anything that indicates you’ve looked into a source that’s not relevant to the discussion no? Since it makes no mention of the main contention?
comment in response to
post
You’ve not even really presented anyone with an argument to wit. I’m not sure what exactly I’m meant to refute on that basis, but if you have something then please present it and we can see what we’re dealing with here.
comment in response to
post
That’s not an argument you headass. Ur getting a little too lost in the weeds for this conversation to be any kind of productive at this point. Just be more careful with your rhetoric and a hell of a lot less confident in it. You’ll seem much more intelligent than you do now. Some free advice.
comment in response to
post
oh wow so youre just doubling down on the accusation that i said "you cant possibly know this" when ive already refuted that. and honestly ur tripling down by putting the crux of the thing i never said in all caps. super dishonest of you man.
comment in response to
post
Yeah I mean, that’s just a straightforwardly false statement so you’re wrong.
comment in response to
post
The only way you could disagree with that statement is honestly if you don’t see the actions being undertaken here as immoral. And given that they’re simply defined as such, you couldn’t disagree with that unless you have some proprietary notion of morality that sees murder and as at worst: amoral.
comment in response to
post
You’re asking for an argument that establishes the truth of the morality of something? I guess genocide is analytically immoral and the weapons we’re sending are used for that definitionally evil action, and therefore the moral choice is that cessation of that activity. There: analytical argument.
comment in response to
post
The conclusion is established by the notion that it’s the *only* option that could effect things to a *degree* that produces the change in question: a ceasefire. You can take umbrage with the truth of that claim but that isn’t what you did. Nothing about what you said is a real refutation.
comment in response to
post
I’ve already taken up the position you find most dubious simply for the sake of discussion. So I’m well aware of any relevant context, and have in fact posited my own justifications for arriving at the position in question. You haven’t engaged with that and that’s fine, but I think I get the convo.
comment in response to
post
Dude just engage with the words being said like what are you doing? No one mentioned anything about experts. You can be ill equipped for a particular conversation, even if it’s with another layperson. This lack of rigor is insane.
comment in response to
post
Who said anything about the deepness with which your detractors analyze their own views? It’s entirely irrelevant! A computer could be making these statements to you and they’d be just as valid. What’s your point?
comment in response to
post
This is what I mean though man. When did I ever say anything that could even be construed as “I don’t think it’s possible for people to know the difference between validity and soundness”? You’re soooo lazy with how you construct claims they end up being bogged down in things you didn’t mean to say.
comment in response to
post
Look I’m not really interested in the psychologizing okay? Think whatever you’d like about me and my state of mind, it’s not relevant.
comment in response to
post
lol. Dude I’m people and I know these things. I’m not saying it’s apocryphal. I’m saying it’s a rigorous and widely discussed area of academics, and if you aren’t engaging with this on that academic level then you’re doing a disservice to yourself. Also lol, pissco watcher.
comment in response to
post
Understanding*
comment in response to
post
This is the kind of half baked usage of these concepts that betray you don’t have a depth of under about them by the way. In case you’d like to appear to be a little more knowledgeable about these things in the future, avoid gotcha attempts like this.
comment in response to
post
Dude I mean, come on. Have a little humility when it comes to this stuff. Anyone who’s philosophically inclined understands very well that you do not have even the most cursory understandings of these concepts, at least as they’re discussed in philosophy. That’s not a huge dig, take it on the chin.
comment in response to
post
You literally did say that though. You said if you’re making an argument that isn’t in premise, premise, conclusion form(otherwise known as a syllogism) then your argument is not logical. That’s a blanket statement you made and it says exactly what I said it does.
comment in response to
post
Conclusion: the only option for forcing a ceasefire would be an arms embargo/cessation of material support.
comment in response to
post
I’ll try here: the argument goes like this: (1)we provide the Israeli state with material they need in order to operate the way they do. (2)Taking away this support would disallow them from operating in that way. (3) no other diplomatic action would impede genocide to nearly the same degree 1/2
comment in response to
post
I mean I’d be happy to take up the burden of that claim so long as you don’t bog the conversation down with pedantic appeals to logical possibilities.