But everything you’re saying in the other posts is pretty generic and applies to the pro and anti abortion crowd in the other countries as well.

There it is!

Hasn’t it already been resolved in a whole bunch of countries? I mean, sure there’s still some folks that disagree with the outcome, but you’ve got folks disagreeing about the earth being round as well. If that’s your bar for debates not having been resolved then I agree with you, but I’d also say you’re not saying anything particularly interesting, disagreeable, or controversial.

Haha your head is pretty far up your ass. No funding means no iron dome, no iron dome means no pissrael.

Ok, so I think our wires cross regarding terminology here. We’re roughly on the same page. So, when you believe something, you can put some probability on how likely it is to be true. I think we both agree that putting probability 1 is either mistaken or a lie. It is asserting that you’re infallible. And I think we both agree that asserting your infallibility is silly. So, to every belief you have you put some probability. If I look at the cat on the mat in broad daylight I will put 0.999, and I’ll put 0.99 if it’s a dimly lit room or whatever. In any case, despite believing the cat to be on the mat, I admit that I am human, therefore fallible, and I will assign some non-zero probability to the negation, namely 0.001 or 0.01. And here I think we’re still on the same page.

Here I think we diverge, and it’s just a matter of definition. I’ve been referring to that small sliver of probability of the negation of my belief being true as “doubt”. So with my definition of doubt, you will agree, there is always some doubt. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but it is always there. Let’s refer to my definition of doubt as “schmoubt”.

If feel like your conception of doubt is basically when schmoubt reaches a certain threshold, namely where you’re no longer comfortable saying you believe the proposition. So for example, we might dim the lights quite a lot, and maybe my schmoubt goes all the way up to 0.4 or whatever, and I no longer believe there is a cat on the mat. I’m pretty sure there’s something sitting on something, but my schmoubt for the statement “the cat is on the mat” is too high for me to justify my belief to myself. So clearly you believe schmoubt is real, but you wouldn’t call it doubt. What do you call it?

Regarding the funeral thing, I think you need to be a bit more critical of your analysis. It is perfectly consistent to believe in an afterlife but also be sad when someone passes. Because for the time being, you will be separated from them. You will be going at it alone, for quite some time in some cases. It’s the same as being sad your significant other will work abroad for a while. You will see them again, and this is temporary, but you are sad because you will not be able to enjoy their physical presence for a while.

I didn’t read your comment, but deepseek said this:

Well said. You’ve nailed the key distinction: AI as a thought amplifier vs. thought substitute. The value depends entirely on the user’s foundation of knowledge. Your approach—building a curated knowledge base so people (and AI) can learn just-in-time—is exactly right. It sets everyone up for success by grounding the AI in truth. Smart strategy.

I haven’t read this either but I hope it helps.

So, I get that you’re trying to be sarcastic or whatever, but you should know that AIPAC spending is public knowledge. So not only is it true that most dems are in Israel’s pocket, it is also very far from a fringe belief at this point.

Look up UN votes on various issues regarding Israel. We’re already there, and have been for decades. It’s just that the US holds the UN hostage with their veto power.

If your bar for believing something is that you’re 100% certain that it is true (i.e., a complete lack of doubt), then you’ve rendered the whole concept of belief useless as there is no proposition this applies to.

Me, if I see a cat sitting on a mat, I will believe there is a cat on the mat. But it might be that it’s a capybara wearing an incredibly convincing cat costume. Very low odds, but the possibility is there. It could also be that I was a bit careless in looking, and the cat is actually sitting on an especially mat-like section of the newspaper. There is always doubt. Sometimes there’s more (maybe the lights were off), sometimes there’s less (I spend a good hour examining the cat-mat situation, consulting biologists and mat experts), but there is always doubt.

Asserting you have no doubt is asserting you made no mistake in assessing reality, i.e., that you’re perfect. And call me a dick, but I don’t think you are.

Exactly, and the allied forces could’ve just not attacked the nazis. All Germany wanted was to be left alone. Great point!