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

You’re incredibly uneducated to be making the claims you are.

Racism in the US south against black people looks different than racism in the midwest/Western states against Native Americans because the goals of the racism were different.

The govt wanted to grow the black population so they could have a huge workforce to take from. Explicit racism helps a lot with this, because it’s declaring people black and enforcing that they are less than and deserve to be a lower class. This is probably what you mean about how racist the south is.

For Native Americans, the govt’s goal is to take their land and destroy their claims to land - they want LESS Native Americans. That’s why colorblindness is the racism in the midwest and west. That is also why those areas HATE Latino people, even though those people are generally just Native Americans who speak Spanish. That’s why you hear stuff like “We speak English here.” That’s why old John Wayne movies were the way they were. That’s why we had those Native American re-education schools. That’s why we killed so mamy buffalo (to starve them) and the Great Plains to this day has never recovered fully from how many millions of herd animals were killed. It’s why, TO THIS DAY, Christian organizations will adopt Native kids to explicitly white Christian families. It’s why the Mormons are in Utah. It’s why most Native reservations are in extremely inhospitable places (look at the Navajo lands versus nearby in Hatch, NM - the Native people would have lived near Hatch, near water, but we took that from them and gave them barren soil - to kill them).

The racism against Native Americans is like smothering and starving a baby to death, whereas the racism in the south is more like screaming//beating at a baby to depression/“submission”.

Rec reading: Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide by Smith, Andrea

Old cowboys used to cut Native women’s labia off and put it on their saddle horns to play with. The west is racist too.

Behind the Nazis is what they learned from Trail of Tears and US antebellum slavery. Behind that, you get Rome.

It’s war. War is behind all fascism.

“Capitalism collapses civilization that pre-dated feudalism”

I wonder what will happen to those prisoners once climate change gets even worse

We need to demand approval choice voting. Every time we hear anything about third parties in this country, we need to use it as a launch pad to tall about approval choice voting

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, if you were someone playing a game with them, then you can incorporate this. The point is that it’s not obligatory and is based on the people participating

It is. Pregnancy cravings?

Okay, think about this - women are growing an entire new entity. This entity is made of flesh. The easiest way to get components to build this flesh entity is other flesh entities.

Eating flesh and blood is a woman thing in most species, yes, we agree. Glad you came around.

https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth/ask-a-scientist-about-our-environment/which-animal-group-has-the-most-organisms#:~:text=In terms of numbers of,documented and studied by scientists.

In terms of numbers of species, insects certainly represent the largest percentage of the world’s organisms. There are more than 1 million species of insects that have been documented and studied by scientists

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.

Where am I backtracking?

https://mitpressbookstore.mit.edu/book/9780385350549

Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Human Evolution

By biomass, yes most animal species do have females who engage in blood meals https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/

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”

It’s not. You should develop some science literacy if you think that sounds made up and don’t know how to verify it yourself. Ofc, I will say every species is a little different and not every single mosquito species even bites humans for example. But as a general rule, yeah, I’m right.

Only the female mosquito bites and feeds on the blood of humans or other animals. https://www.epa.gov/mosquitocontrol/mosquito-life-cycle#:~:text=Only the female mosquito bites,conditions for a few months.

an adult female flea lays eggs following a blood meal from the host https://www.petmd.com/dog/parasites/evr_multi_understanding_the_flea_life_cycle

After a female tick feeds and is engorged with blood, she releases pheromones to attract a mate. https://mosquitojoe.com/blog/understanding-the-tick-lifecycle/

The female then must locate a blood-meal to complete development of her eggs. https://mmcd.org/black-fly-life-cycle/

For the roosters - this is a well recorded and observed behavior you can watch on TT or wherever. Not all roos do it, but it’s pretty common nonetheless with thousands of videos observing this: https://youtu.be/ynhzfbZ0oGk?si=vhEtGxP5VI33sB-L

I literally don’t believe that about testosterone and pain, and yes I looked up studies and they are there, you are correct. I think it’s probably cognitive priming affecting results, the idea men should be more resistant to pain so they do so, similar to how IQ tests cause discrepancies (See: Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine).

In my actual experience as a proDominatrix beating people, men with testosterone tolerate SIGNIFICANTLY less pain than estrogenized counterparts. And these are men in MMA and former military etc. They just can’t mentally handle agony the same for the most part. I don’t think they enjoy the sensate texture of pain like women subs do. Stuff that makes women moan and whimper makes men scream and yelp and jump back in shocked pain. And perhaps this has to do with cognitive priming relating to their perception of me; however I will say even pretransition subs follow this. A transwoman who has never taken hormones tolerates pain the same as a ciswoman in my experience. I think we force women to tolerate abuse automatically and they just tend to deal with it better, and enjoy playing with the sensation more. I also think women tend to be more skilled at empathy and tend to tolerate pain better when I’m feeling something strongly - I think they go on my emotional journey as a Domme to escape their emotional journey as a sub.

Re: cognitive priming - Look at all the videos of period cramp simulators - men have been cognitively primed to quit earlier and do quit most of the time while women chill and pokerface.

And I’ve had other Dom(mes) agree, including male Doms, about this. Women tolerate pain and violence more in real life settings, and also tend to request it more.

Now there are two distinct parameters of pain tolerance and maybe that’s where the study is confusing itself, because I don’t see clarity between these definitions. One is pain sensitivity, how much pain you actually feel. There is a woman in the UK with a lot of natural anandamide* who isn’t senstive to pain at all - but if she feels equivalent pain to another person for some reason, it’s possible she cannot tolerate it the same. Tolerating pain is different than how much pain we actually feel, but science has a hard time measuring these things. Perhaps testosterone does indeed help “numb” people to pain, but I still think women tolerate or endure actual pain sensation better.

• https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2023-06-01/a-woman-immune-to-pain-and-anxiety-opens-new-avenues-for-treatment-of-injuries-and-stress.html

Oh and PS cognitive priming is likely why men don’t go to the doctor as well

It’s funny because eating flesh and blood is a “woman” thing in most species. Ticks, mosquitoes, fleas, flies - all the ones biting you are female looking for a blood meal. Arguably, in ancient times men gathering meat was probably to provide for the women in their lives. Even roosters will do this for their hens - bring them bugs or peck at food on the ground to show the hen where it is without eating it.

That all being said, the gender dichotomy is stupid and we are a bit more sophisticated than all that.

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 🤌