Lol, no it isn't. Ever since Cold War times, the law has been that the president can not only launch missiles, but even deploy troops on the ground, without congressional approval. There's a limit on how long the troops can be deployed, iirc, but once you've started a ground invasion it's a bit late.
Obviously it's unconstitutional, but there's no legal precedent that would say so. If you think this is the first time this has happened, you really need to learn more about history. The US never formally declared war on Vietnam, for example.
I'm not adding any additional meaning. As I explained, nobody says, "My group is above criticism" but what they say is, "The criticisms against my group are nonfactual and/or disrespectful." Everyone agrees with the principle you've said, but that principle is completely meaningless because any perspective that wants to shut down criticism will just say that it's nonfactual or disrespectful.
If you just think critically about it and break down what your statement actually means, it's just "I agree with criticism I agree with." I don't really know what more I can say to explain that, it seems very straightforward to me. From your other comments, you talk about people criticizing major religions, well, suppose someone from a major religion says, "I agree, and also, I think such and such criticism is disrespectful." Maybe you don't think it's disrespectful. Maybe they make a criticism about you that they don't find disrespectful, but you do. Who determines which criticisms meet the criteria of factual and respectful? Everyone can accept your standard and carry on exactly as they were, simply saying that the criticism they agree with meet the standard and the criticisms they disagree with don't. It's pretty meaningless.
Are you often finding yourself in situations where people aren't disputing facts and norms, but just whether, in principle, legitimate criticism should be said at all? Can you give me an example?
Basically you're just saying, "I agree with criticism I agree with." Nobody would say, outright and in principle, that they think a group is above criticism, but people are going to disagree on which criticisms are factual and respectful.
OK, so returning to the original point, if you agree that our senses our subjective, then the difference between a scientist reading a scale and me remembering whether I turned the oven on is just a matter of the degree of reliability, and both are evidence-based.
When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren’t looking at the oven, you’re remembering it.
You're also relying on your subjective memory when you look away from the scale to write down the number you read.
There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.
Oh, now this is fascinating. Tell me, does this "accepted protocol" mean that you don't have to rely on your subjective senses at all? If so, then how, exactly, does the information end up reaching your brain? I would love to know.
This is essentially just, "When someone wears a lab coat, that means it's objective." Even within "accepted protocols" there is still plenty of room for human error.
You are completely wrong about basically everything you've said, and your wrong ideas seem to be a product of the disdain you seem to have for the humanities - a common ailment of people with just enough knowledge of science to be very confidently wrong about things.
My observations about turning off the oven are just as objective and evidence-based as any other observations. I saw whether I did it or not very clearly with my own two eyes. If you want to get into, "Senses are inherently subjective," fine, but that includes using your eyes to read a scale during an experiment. You're trying to draw an insane distinction between reading a scale and reading a dial on an oven, it makes absolutely zero sense, and you don't understand anything about science, epistemology, or philosophy in general. You're going full Dunning-Kruger here.
And vernacular is how people understand each other. When you say, "Science has nothing to do with belief," then most people are going to interpret that according to the common-use meaning. If I say, "I believe I turned off the oven," I'm not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I'm saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.
If you want to communicate in a way that people will understand, then I don't think you should going around using the word "belief" to mean this nonstandard, technical definition without qualifications or explanation. And I definitely don't think that you should assume that anyone who disagrees with statements made with that nonstandard definition is simply committed to rejecting reason and evidence, as opposed to the much more obvious and reasonable interpretation that they're simply interpreting the word in the standard, common use way.
I think it's just a miscommunication/misunderstanding in that case. From my perspective, the level of information required to provide "informed consent" depends on the severity and importance of the decision, and the level of information a child can understand also depends on their age. I think we're on the same page conceptually and just using different terminology.
I apologize for jumping to conclusions, that's my bad.
I'm not trying defend those deployments, I hate the military as much as anyone. But the fascist I'm arguing with is trying to use those deployments as a justification for a hostile, century long occupation with the goal of forcibly erasing their culture through force. All I'm saying is, those are not the same thing.
If that were true, you'd have a lot in common with them. How many women were murdered by the occupation? I wonder, how long your country would have to occupied to stop people from thinking and acting like you? Because I think we should leave Afghanistan alone and start there.
I hope that you find yourself on the receiving end of what you support.
The only language you imperialist bastards will ever understand is force, thankfully, Afghans know how to speak it. May the message spread around the world.
OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 29Comments 3,248Joined 1 yr. ago
Lol, no it isn't. Ever since Cold War times, the law has been that the president can not only launch missiles, but even deploy troops on the ground, without congressional approval. There's a limit on how long the troops can be deployed, iirc, but once you've started a ground invasion it's a bit late.
Obviously it's unconstitutional, but there's no legal precedent that would say so. If you think this is the first time this has happened, you really need to learn more about history. The US never formally declared war on Vietnam, for example.