Netenyahu, security mastermind.
donuts
joined 2 years ago
Just in time for nobody to care.
You're not gonna sell shit with jacked up sky high prices, even more so in a time of high interest rates. We see your lots are full of unsold cars, both ICE and EV, so maybe it's time to bring prices back down to Earth.
We really ought to change the laws to allow for direct-to-consumer car sales. Dealerships are scummy motherfuckers who are perfectly happy to be a middleman and rip people off.
Oh don't mind me, just pointing out the textbook whataboutism here, folks.
Not to mention a SCOTUS who he appointed 33% of, and potentially more if he takes power again.
Oh they hate the phrase "work-life balance"?
Let me just work it into my daily vocab.
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well.
Unless you can read minds, which you can't (even with your tinfoil hat off), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.
I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you're entitled to feel), but it doesn't actually change the objective truth:
Feelings are "excluded from scrutiny" not because "we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy", but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.
If you believe that's not true, then answer this:
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?
If you can't answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.
So now I've lead you to water, and it's up to you whether you drink or not. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.
Of course people lie, and they could easily lie about how they're feeling. But what possible basis do you have to argue against what someone else says they're feeling?
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry, for example, how could you possibly make an argument that I'm not?
You could see that I just ate a sandwich, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel hungry. In fact, you could see that I just ate 10 sandwiches, but it's entirely possible for someone to still feel hungry, based on how the brain and human psyche work.
The best case arguement is the opinion that a person's actions are seemingly inconsistent with a certain stated feeling: for example a widow who says that she's crippled with sorrow, only to be caught going on dates with other men. But again, you're not arguing feelings there, you're arguing an opinion about the consistency of behavior.
The feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable to us. Expression (words, facial expressions, body language, behavior, etc) is our only window into the feelings of others.
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right?
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable to others by means of expression.
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?
You have none. How I feel inside is unknowable to others. It is a fundamental truth of subjectivity.
Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued, only uncovered.
Likewise feelings, while subjective, cannot be argued, only expressed. (Again, because the feelings of others are unknowable.)
If you want to argue something, then I recommend arguing subjective opinions, and hopefully you do so based on a bedrock of facts.
That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
Disallowing what? Feelings? And what system?
I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking here, but emotional states like suffering are subjective expressions of feeling, not opinions.
Trying to argue about some else's experiences with regards to suffering is like trying to argue that someone isn't happy, sad, cold, warm, hungry, thirsty, tired, scared, etc.
As always the ultimate authority on how a person thinks and feels is the person themselves.
In other words, you can argue opinions (hopefully based on a foundation of unarguable, objective facts), but it makes no sense to try to argue against another person's feelings.
You could argue, if you do desired, the opinion that people are too emotionally sensitive, but even that seems like a waste of time to me, because it's very unlikely emotional sensitivity is a choice. (If it was, you could also simply choose to be more empathetic and understanding of others, just in the same way that you want other people to become less sensitive to their own feelings.)
Personally I have better things to do with my time than argue about other people's feelings.
What's more, people have agency that allows them to seek new information on their own and they form subjective opinions.
As human beings we also spend every moment of our lives taking in all kinds of various sensory information that informs our eventual character and mind (and that's to say nothing of our individual mental/neurological nature). We also have an imperfect and complex ability to retain information.
When a human being expresses a thought they are expressing it based on a lifetime of broad experiences that are unique to their specific circumstances. Similarly, when a human being paints a painting of a tree they are doing it not based purely on some library of other people's art, but also based on their own lifetime of experience.
People who equate "artificial intelligence" with human intelligence and lived experience are completely off base.
That certainly sucks.
With regard to the scheduling, to be fair to Biden, there is a set process in which the final scheduling is determined by the DEA. This process goes back to the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (when a lot of our stances on drugs became fucked up).
https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/csa
Biden has called on Cannabis scheduling to be reexamined, now HHS has done their internal study and they think it should be stopped to a lower schedule, and now it's the DEAs turn to act on their recommendation or not. (They are expected to, but who in the hell knows.)
It could be argued that maybe Biden could do it with an executive order, but they're probably not going to do something that can be seen as circumventing the administrative process (since Republicans are more than happy to tear all of these agencies down, or at least they say they are.) EOs are pretty fragile things too.
The only other option in that case would be for Congress to pass or amend a law legalizing Cannabis and/or reforming the CSA. But Congress are pretty damn unreliable to say the least.