Harris would not have done the same, so yes voting would have prevented it. Not voting did not prevent the genocide in Gaza. So you accomplished nothing, and things got worse.
Ad-hominem all you want, your opinion has no value whatsoever. Grow up and think about something besides virtue signaling for once.
Braindead bad faith take. Who’s gloating? It’s tragic. This could have been prevented.
I don’t support either of those things, but they’re happening either way. Hence why I voted for the one poised to do less. Unfortunately, not enough people did the same thing, and now we’re bombing Iran. I guess you won. Congrats?
Who is the DNC mass murdering right now? The government is controlled by Republicans right now. The Democrats losing the election did not end the genocide in Gaza, in many ways it’s gotten even worse. And now Republicans are doing additional terrible things that the Democrats would not have done.
You care more about posturing and virtue signaling your purity than you care about other countries. Everything is worse now but at least you didn’t compromise.
What was bipartisan about it? It’s actually a perfect example of my point.
Prefacing a statement deserving of valid criticism with an assertion that critics are bad does not make the criticism invalid.
And genocide marches on, entirely unaffected by your lack of support. Good thing there weren’t any other policies “blue maga” differed on, right?
I’m not. Scientism, in this meaning, it’s basically the opposite of science. It stifles proper scientific reasoning. Pretending it isn’t a problem is itself a problem.
They didn’t say science, they said scientism. As a term it’s been used a few ways, but in this context it’s referring to a sort of cargo cult erected around “science”. It’s not about testing theories and hypotheses, it’s a dogmatic acceptance of some extant collection of scientific theories as fact, even beyond their experimental context or in light of conflicting evidence. Among other things.
Not gonna yuck anyone’s yum, but I’ve tried the tunnel and still prefer the hole.
Stop asking, I guess. It’s not a great answer, but what’re you gonna do?
Everyone is different buddy. Different people respond to different situations differently.
They still got to spend time with other kids. You could argue that the labour was a normal childhood.
The difference is that Jackson was uniquely isolated. He wasn’t spending his days with other child performers his age, he was spending it with his older brothers and adults.
Jackson was really young when his childhood effectively ended. Five years old. I had a difficult childhood, but I at least got to go to school and have friends and have some modicum of a social life. And even then, I spent most of my college years making up for stages I missed out on in high school.
It’s not that far-fetched to me that he would want to reclaim parts of childhood that he missed out on, and it seems like he also tried to provide that kind of opportunity for other child stars (notably Macaulay Culkin). I’m not saying I’m sold one way or the other, but the notion is definitely understandable.
I’d say more “select from” than “churn out”. It’s not about generating a hypothesis, it’s about having a collection of hypotheses and deciding which should be your default until additional evidence is provided.
Hanlon’s razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, and “adequately” is pulling at least as much weight as “never”. If stupidity becomes a less adequate explanation, nothing stops you from considering malice as an alternative.
People use things wrong all the time, sometimes the vast majority of the time (e.g. “literally”). Just because people use a concept pseudologically doesn’t make it intrinsically pseudological.
But razors aren’t supposed to be logic in the first place. They’re not objective analytical tools to arrive at a conclusion, because they weren’t designed to be. They’re framing tools to help establish an initial hypothesis.
Occam’s razor doesn’t claim that the simplest explanation is true, it merely says it’s the most practical assumption, all else being equal. If additional data provides more support for a more complicated explanation, Occam’s really doesn’t require you to cling to the simpler one.
Similarly Hanlon’s razor doesn’t claim that stupidity is universally a better explanation than malice, only that is the most practical assumption, all else being equal. It does not require you to ignore patterns of behavior that shift the likelihood toward malice.
Jesus loves her more than she will know
I think you may have missed the joke, look at the bottom right corner of the sign
When did Harris bomb Iran?