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
Well that's an interesting religious perspective you have there. I just don't share your faith in that notion.
More to the point, it's not that I stand for ideas that you disagree with, it's that I stand against enforcing your or my personal opinions on other people like that.
It's not that I'm particularly in favor of one style of education or another, but that I am against blocking other people from having access to the forms of education that they think best.
I'm happy to support you in promoting educational options for children and their parents. I just don't think that you should be allowed to take educational options away from other people.
I mean, did Instagram ever have a point?
It always seemed amazingly useless to me, so to say it is getting more and more pointless is like saying zero is getting less and less.
Better to give people options for better educations for their kids, even if you yourself would impose restrictions because you are personally against them? I think so.
Again, I'm sorry you are afraid of these people, if you are leaning into this Barry Goldwater quote, but just because you are personally afraid it doesn't strike me as very good reason to keep better educations away from children.
I would generally just keep government out of those decisions.
*sigh* I took the time to look it up. It was a Chevy Bolt, an EV, that went into limp mode from a full charge in around 50 miles.
I don't remember exactly which out of the way country gas station we had to leave it at, or I'd be able to get you exact mileage, but me glancing at a map, it was around 50 miles.
*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.
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:
