volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
*shrug* if public schools can do better then they should, and this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
Otherwise it'll be you judging other peoples' kids...
Keep in mind that your projection of your own values on kids isn't particularly compelling.
I just wish we had better options than these two jerks, and I wish Biden wouldn't engage in these prosecutions that make Trump so poised to even potentially be reelected.
Right exactly! 3 USC lays out the process that Trump was following!
Or maybe attempting to follow, if he wasn't such a moron.
But the point is, that statute is exactly what lays out the reason it's folly to charge Trump with these indictments.
You're making a lot of assumptions, and you know what they say about assumptions.
But where did you provide any of the USC? I did not see that. Apparently Mastodon decided to hide that for some reason.
Well I don't think it's really interesting to specify, but it was a rental car and off the top of my head I don't remember what model it was. I want to say it was a Chevy? But I honestly don't remember.
When we started off the range was something like 600 mi but it made only something like 50 miles before it died.
So like I was saying, seriously a big malfunction.
You are incorrect, sir.
By law Congress is absolutely empowered to question and debate the certifications brought to it to determine whether the states did or did not legally properly certify a slate of electors.
That is the entire point of the law that was set in statute to resolve such questions.
So again, you seem to be begging the question, assuming the set of electors when the set of electors is the question that was on the table.
Fine! If the students aren't better served then they won't attend those schools, so the whole question is null.
Again, you're begging the question since Who is the real elector? is exactly the question that was to be adjudicated.
Again, the electors are only fake if you assume the end of the process having rejected them.
It's like a claim of innocence being fake only if the trial came up with a guilty conclusion.
It just doesn't make sense. It's not what the law provided for.
It's not a slate of fake electors at all. It is a slate of electors that would be entirely countable should the process judge them to be so.
To be clear, I absolutely say that in the end that slate was not the one to be counted. But that's why we have this process inshrined in law, to determine which slate is the one to be counted.
Having a different opinion on which one to count is part of the law, part of the process set out in law.
No obviously he was not entitled to hand pick his own slate of completely illegitimate electors. That is not the question. That is absolutely not what is being argued. I don't know why you keep returning to that thing that is not being argued.
I mean yes, the Biden administration is whipping that straw man as much as it can, but it is absolutely not the argument on the table.
Nobody at all is arguing that Trump could hand pick illegitimate electors.
So why in the world keep going back to that?
I just know a few teachers, and also a few students, who prefer the other environments.
I honestly don't know what you are saying here because it sounds like you are proving my point.
It sounds like you are saying that I don't recognize the diversity of interfaces and then you went on to talk at length about the diversity of interfaces.
You're missing that that entitlement was part of the objection process.
You're recognizing the legitimacy of the process but complaining about an element of the process.
That's what you're missing here.
You didn't realize that the VP can't do anything involving the 25th on his own...
I think you are looking at it backwards, though.
Each UI participating in Fediverse can do its own thing. Each UI does what it needs to do for its users and its goals regardless of anything else.
So if one client does things different from another that doesn't create a rift that is simply the way this works, with different clients displaying things differently according to different goals.
It's not a rift. It is an entirely expected difference of application.
Did you read the indictment for yourself? Because it does not support your position.
You're still falling into the circular argument.
You say the states certified the legit electors, but the exact question was whether the states had legitimately certified electors.
You're still assuming the answer to the very question that was being raised through this legal process, as the law set out, and had we all focused on the legal process this would largely be a non-issue.
But instead we allowed everybody to assume the answer instead of letting the legal process play out, which allowed a whole lot of people to point out the break from the legal process, and fed into this whole chaotic situation.
In short, your line of rhetoric right here plays into Trump's hands. It would be for better if we simply applied the law instead of engaging in the circular arguments that just fueled his rhetoric.
I really believe the guy would not be running again if we had simply applied the law.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
