Phi for All

Is this supposed to replace any of the knowledge science has worked hard to explain over the centuries? It seems like you've renamed several things or given them different definitions. This more or less guarantees you're the only one who will understand what you're talking about. This is why most folks interested in philosophy and science study what others have discovered before them. It's not boring.

In the version I saw, when it was explained to him, he then blamed the liberals for being stupid enough to have two names for the same thing.

He's helped a lot, for sure. Did he really air nude photos of Melania in the same news segments congratulating TFG on his win? Yes, he did! https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-tv-melania-trump/

FOX News host and former National Guard Captain Pete Hegseth is the nominee for SecDef, because the US probably won't need its military in the foreseeable future.

When the "news" outlets are trying to entertain rather than inform, and the goal is to take up more of your time instead of telling you what you need to know and sending you on your way, it's difficult for me to single out FOX. Certainly the worst, but I had trouble with an MSN article recently about douchebag Nick Fuentes: https://www.msn.com/en-in/entertainment/hollywood/meet-marla-rose-woman-who-doxxed-nick-fuentes-after-being-pepper-sprayed-at-his-house/ar-AA1tUpQF After going on X to tell women of the US, "Your body, MY choice. Forever!", Nicky got doxxed. A woman who lived near the address went to go check it out, and ended up ringing his doorbell. Allegedly, Nick burst out of the door, pepper sprayed the woman and pushed her down the stairs, taking her phone, which the police later gave back to her. A witness called emergency services, who treated the woman. There are witnesses to all of this, but the article from supposedly center-left MSN is hardly fair and balanced. The headline is wrong: "Meet Marla Rose, Woman Who Doxxed Nick Fuentes After Being 'Pepper Sprayed' At His House". She didn't doxx him after being sprayed. She didn't doxx him at all. Someone else gave out his address and Marla Rose went to check it out. This is more than bad reporting, imo. The opening line of the story is wrong. "Marla Rose, a Jewish activist, allegedly tried to break in into far-right commentator Nick Fuentes' Illinois home and was 'pepper sprayed'." A few lines later they acknowledge that "She rang the doorbell and was allegedly met with pepper spray". MSN equates ringing a doorbell with breaking in?! How can we be sure the mistakes aren't put there on purpose to make us re-read the article a few times, or that supposedly center-left MSN wants to also get the attention of Fuentes white nationalist supporters by mentioning a break-in by a Jewish activist? Requiring the "news" to actually inform us looks a lot like expecting the medical industry to actually cure us. What's in it for them? Where's the incentive to benefit others?

TFG's campaign spent over $100M in the last weeks leading up to the election on TV ads targeting the fact that Harris approved transgender care for prison inmates in California, claiming she would do it nationwide if elected. $100M spent demonizing a tiny group, and lying about how much of a problem it is. The policies Harris supported have been in place since 2016. AFAICT, only two inmates have received such care in CA.

If you're stating opinion only, please use phrases like, "I think..." to let us know. The post in question was full of assertions about what Democrats did, that Harris should have stumped in rural areas (she did), and that you somehow knew what the Democrats were thinking and what they underestimated, all without any examples to support the stance. You even claimed, "Those that changed camps this election cycle were those bothered by the direction and economy of the country", again without citing a source for your beliefs.

Reasonable, and this is actually the current process, from what I've read. And here we go, positing that these decisions are made as "blind assumptions", totally negating the admission that case-by-case diagnoses are needed. Make your argument sound reasonable, then accuse the other side of blind assumptions and ridicule the whole process. Lots of hate, lots of misunderstanding, lots of butthurt about people actually trying to be happy in life.

Kiss the ring, get an armband, keep your guns? It's what Putin and Orban did. Otherwise, you need a full psychiatric evaluation to be licensed in Russia. Kim Jong Un might let some folks hunt (the East Germans used to have government supervised "hunts" for certain agricultural collectives), but as far as I've heard, he doesn't allow guns for protection except in military hands.

I don't think there can be a balance. You need a weapon to hunt or for target shooting, that's the "sporting" argument. Arguing to have weapons to defend yourself from other citizens or even your own government throws off any balance you might have had. There's no balance when both the police and the citizens are armed. I am curious about how easily the MAGA crowd will give up their guns when TFG asks for them (they've given him everything else he's asked for). You can't be an authoritarian leader with an armed citizenry. All his heroes heavily restrict who can have a gun in their respective countries. Eventually he's going to tell his worshippers that the enemy within might steal their guns and use them on innocents, and it's best if he confiscates them before that happens. He really just wants to protect you, whether you like it or not.

The GOP changed rapidly when TFG and QAnon took the party over. Republicans that had both experience in legislation and some honor wrt PoC and women were shoved to the background. The ones that remain are the scum of the Earth, and I have no doubt they are practicing all the horrible atrocities they claim the liberals are up to. I truly hope each and every one of them are held accountable for the damage they've inflicted on humans in the US. The GOP is looking for more slaves and trad wives, and unless wiser heads can prevail, they're all traitors to the democracy the rest of us are trying to maintain.

Sorry, but I do. Mathematics uses proofs, and philosophy uses logical proofs, but science uses theory. Theory is the strongest explanation science has, and its strength lies in the fact that explanations can be updated with new evidence as it becomes known, or dropped completely if shown to be false (like phlogiston theory). If you have an "answer" to something, or believe you've "proved" something is "true", you stop looking any further. With theory, you're constantly checking, experimenting, testing, predicting, and strengthening your explanation for a phenomenon, all while trying to remove as much subjective bias as possible. I don't see this as an ignorance issue, but one of definition. I don't need gods to explain anything I experience in this life, and as long as they remain unobservable I can treat them like any supernatural belief. I don't need to view them as impossible in order to deal with them as somehow outside of what we observe in nature. More reasonable is exactly what I'm shooting for. I think it's more reasonable to say "The current absence of evidence makes me skeptical, but I'm always open to listening if you find some" than to say "The absence of evidence proves there are no gods". Nothing prevents you from believing gods don't exist, but I think it's unreasonable to say evidence for gods can't exist. Perhaps I'm just sensitive to being called "hidebound" and "dismissive" when talking about religion.

I voted against having my society tell us how many children it needed us to have. In fact, JD Vance can go have sex with a couch and I still don't think society should require him to have children by it.

Except it wasn't rhetoric in Palin's case, and most definitely wasn't "much the same type". This type of rhetoric, where you call brilliant people "totally stupid and dumb" without any examples of what you're talking about, is strictly a Republican tactic. Democrats are much more likely to actually do research, whereas Republicans learned from Newt and Rush that you just need to use schoolyard taunts to disparage things you don't like.

Did anyone suggest differently? Again, science is not about "proving" anything, and even supporting the existence of gods with evidence has failed. In their current forms, all religions that believe in gods are unfalsifiable. But if one of those gods decides to become observable and deal with us physically, your stance tells me there's no point in even listening. While that may well be true, I think it's a bit too hidebound to declare something is impossible when I can just as easily remain skeptical and fall back on "Show me the evidence and I'll keep an open mind". I get the feeling you're trying to distance yourself from a former belief. "I'm sure if I were God..." doesn't sound like you're arguing like it's all trash to you.