How you can reckon with reality? Sound awfully lot as a feeling based assumptions.
It is true, that you can not be certain of all truths, and sometimes you’ll need to make a lucky guess based on your values etc.
But fact checking is basically just critical search of information. It is not a skill that requires hogh academic knowledge, but it is a vital skill.
Considering how strong conspiracy theories are these days, it’s clear that people aren’t aware how to compare information.
Facts are much more complex than an umpire calling balls and strikes. There are many situations where there is insufficient data (information) to draw an accurate conclusion. “Fact Checking” should then state that no accurate conclusion can be made from available information at this time.
What do you do then? “Follow the science.” Just know that the science on that situation is in the developing phase. Science is an easy analogy as there are a multitude of examples where the “best science” is just plain wrong. If you have lived as long as I have, you would have seen the “best science” fail repeatedly. Just know that best science considered Crisco a better option than saturated fat from animals. Laughable, huh?
What was the other choice (singular)?
“Best science” is stupid saying, I’ll agree.
World is filled with uncertainty and there is not always enough information, I’m not naive.
It does not mean that comparing information aka fact checking or science are useless, quite contrary.
You can’t ever be 100% sure, but not all arguments or opinions weight the same.
So, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say? Just give up and believe the one who happens to please my worldviews (yeah, this is how majority seem to do it).
The problem is, in a philosophical debate, facts are there to interpreted and judged. They are part of an argument but not the conclusion of an argument. Science cannot tell us if socialism is true or false. That’s not even a question we could ask.
Consider, “we hold these truths to be self-evident…” This is not science, it really isn’t truth or facts. It is an opinion based on observation. The fact there is an appeal to a supernatural being flies in the face of science.
Again, the same way humans have always discerned true from false.
It is NOT easy in 2025. Socialist propagandists, complete with an army of @zecarlo’s to go out and sow doubt and discord everywhere they go, have been working with an extraordinary level of funding and organization to poison the discourse wherever possible.
Fact checkers, which our resident USAID beneficiary @zecarlo was in staunch support of, were a major contributor to this manipulation attempt.
Americans discerned the deception at a gut level, and we were correct. If what I suspect is true, we will have been more correct than any group of Americans has been since we went to war with each other and ended the institution of slavery.
This will surely continue to upset all of the people who have been working in service of this massive grift that seems to be unraveling in front of us.
Intellectuals in particular will be struggling to explain why there were still right about their positions for quite some time. Hopefully this will be done on their own dime, without the aid of tax dollars.
Science is just an analogy I used, because it is based on observed data. It doesn’t include human opinion (at least, it shouldn’t) which complexes all philosophical problems. If we can’t agree on truth in science, we have very little chance finding truth in philosophical problems
“Best science” is what I demand being said for all scientific conclusions. Far too many people consider all science as “final science.”
If you don’t post pro socialist quotes from me to back up your claims, I will respond to every post you make by calling you a lying sack of shit. I warned you, and now you’re going to learn the hard way.
Final science is even worse. Hahah
It’s never been easy, nor will be.
The hardest part starts when you consider the option that you’re actually wrong in you assumptions.
Okay tough guy. Let me guess, you’re 61 years old and front squat 405 for reps, undefeated by all comers on the mats.
All you’ve ever done is row in that direction on these forums, without ever staking out a political position on your own. This is common across the entire internet. All you can do is sow discord, contributing few if any opinions of your own.
You also ALL recoil at plain language and observation of patterns, all while calling anti-Socialists morons and easily-fooled simpletons, insisting both sides are the same.
You reek of it.
He is a liar and a dishonest person so don’t be surprised that he posts nonsense.
You are a lying sack of shit.
I was talking generally. I don’t want to attack individuals if they disagree with me, umless they get caught purposefully lying or acting with bad intent.
Unlike him.
Which he was.
But you are doing the right thing because it’s not easy dealing with zealots.
I agree.
Media aired and/or published “fact checking” needs to cease.
A solution might be an aired debate to present both “truths.” Of course there is lag time before the debate could be heard, even if was relatively short with AI assistance. Both “truths” need to have competent defense.
Like trying to nullify the 14th amendment by executive order? An executive order a judge called so blatantly unconstitutional it boggles his mind a lawyer had written it?
I suppose it’s moot anyway since as you said you already voted for him, and wouldn’t vote for anyone else anyway since the other options were no good either, and that we can’t discern truth anymore… except somehow you did even through all the propaganda
Alright, well I was hoping to see you in the mob but it doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen
Asking people who assert facts for the source might help. Even kids are required to cite their sources when writing.