Alright, you know, if you won’t use reason, then whatever your faith tells you I guess.

OK, so returning to the original point, if you agree that our senses our subjective, then the difference between a scientist reading a scale and me remembering whether I turned the oven on is just a matter of the degree of reliability, and both are evidence-based.

When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren’t looking at the oven, you’re remembering it.

You’re also relying on your subjective memory when you look away from the scale to write down the number you read.

There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.

Oh, now this is fascinating. Tell me, does this “accepted protocol” mean that you don’t have to rely on your subjective senses at all? If so, then how, exactly, does the information end up reaching your brain? I would love to know.

This is essentially just, “When someone wears a lab coat, that means it’s objective.” Even within “accepted protocols” there is still plenty of room for human error.

You are completely wrong about basically everything you’ve said, and your wrong ideas seem to be a product of the disdain you seem to have for the humanities - a common ailment of people with just enough knowledge of science to be very confidently wrong about things.

That’s incredibly dumb.

My observations about turning off the oven are just as objective and evidence-based as any other observations. I saw whether I did it or not very clearly with my own two eyes. If you want to get into, “Senses are inherently subjective,” fine, but that includes using your eyes to read a scale during an experiment. You’re trying to draw an insane distinction between reading a scale and reading a dial on an oven, it makes absolutely zero sense, and you don’t understand anything about science, epistemology, or philosophy in general. You’re going full Dunning-Kruger here.

It records vernacular.

And vernacular is how people understand each other. When you say, “Science has nothing to do with belief,” then most people are going to interpret that according to the common-use meaning. If I say, “I believe I turned off the oven,” I’m not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I’m saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.

If you want to communicate in a way that people will understand, then I don’t think you should going around using the word “belief” to mean this nonstandard, technical definition without qualifications or explanation. And I definitely don’t think that you should assume that anyone who disagrees with statements made with that nonstandard definition is simply committed to rejecting reason and evidence, as opposed to the much more obvious and reasonable interpretation that they’re simply interpreting the word in the standard, common use way.

So?

Within 20 minutes of a phone call between Reagan and Begin, in which the former said the bombings were going too far and needed to stop, Begin ordered the bombings stopped.

Virtually every current US politician is to the right of Reagan on Israel.

Reagan did.

Biden and the Dems spent a year pretending they had no power over Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

…pretending, because they did, in fact, have power over it. Are you claiming they actually had no such power?

Israel is a puppet of the US, not the other way around.

I can understand that perspective, but I’m looking at things from more of a class based and realpolitik perspective. The international order, I would say even now, but especially at that time of peak colonialism, was pretty much like this.

The Allied powers dominated the world, and they achieved that through force, brazen, unapologetic aggression. Germany didn’t have a problem with that, except for the part where they weren’t the ones on top, that they didn’t have colonies to exploit like everyone else.

From my perspective, the real problem is that socialists at the time didn’t follow through on the Basel declaration of 1912 where socialists of every country promised to oppose the coming war. When the war actually broke out, everyone rallied around their respective flags, the British and French socialists talked about Germany invading neutral countries and not being as democratic, but the German socialists justified it by talking about serfdom in Russia and the colonialism of Britain and France, and at the end of the day, tons of regular people got drafted to go die in the trenches over these power games.

Admittedly, I’ve never really considered it from a Belgian perspective before, but I think the bigger nations were all more motivated by power than by a genuine commitment to upholding neutrality and national sovereignty.

Love Blackadder, especially that season ❤️

Pretty sure nobody was fighting before the Germans attacked Eben emael with gliders.

That’s the wrong war. Fort Eben Emael wasn’t even constructed yet, and there were no paratroopers on any side.

Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on June 28th, 1914. On July 28th, Austria-Hungary began shelling Belgrade, in the first shots of the war. Germany occupied Luxembourg August 2nd and invaded Belgium August 4th.

But regardless, the European powers were always going to end up fighting each other after running out of places to colonize, building up enormous militaries, and forming a bunch of secret alliances. No nation was the “good guys” in WWI, they were a bunch of imperialist colonial states jockeying for power, and sending ordinary people into awful conditions to die for no good reason.

Lol, what? The military was off slaughtering people en masse in multiple wars of aggression and you consider it a point of national pride that they didn’t have parades (which they also did)?

You’re absolutely valid and not overreacting. Unfortunately, depending on where you live, you might not have many other options - but if you can look into other modes of transportation you should.

Driving is dangerous, and not everyone is cut out for it. The great thing about public transit is that it’s much safer and less stressful, it doesn’t demand focus and attention - and that benefits drivers too, because it means fewer bad drivers will feel like they have to drive and it reduces traffic in general.

It all comes down to what the alternative is. If your alternative to driving is relying on others to drive you places, it’ll reduce your independence or be expensive (if you use rideshares). But if the alternative is biking or taking a train, then by all means go for it. There’s lots of reasons cars suck, danger, stress, insurance, gas, traffic, pollution, lots of reasons to look into other options.

Eh, if Israel did not exist, the United States would just invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.

Germans were no more responsible for WWI than the British, French, etc.

>SoftestSaphhic

>he

>that dude

Are you illiterate or are you an asshole?

Inconsistent enforcement. The mods consider it within their rights to remove content purely on the basis that it’s critical of AI. Giving some of it a pass (for now) doesn’t change that.