I think the concern isn’t desensitization, but normalization, of child sex acts. It’s the idea that watching others (hentai, childish looking adults, etc.) perform these acts makes one feel like these acts are normal, and therefore ok. Really, it’s the same concern people have with violent pornography.

Tell me, 'prick, how should substantive equality be achieved in 21st c. America without White Men power-sharing with (therefore deselecting other White Men in favor of) historically excluded Non-White Women & Men — 180 Proof

Ideally it should start with equal opportunity, meaning access to quality education, healthcare, and so on. This would eliminate circumstantial (dis)advantages such as being born in poverty or of a particular race, gender, etc. A more equal playing field from which the best in a particular field can excel and advance through competition.

The other side of this is the issue of discrimination which exists now. I’m not naïve enough to believe I’m creative or smart enough to solve this problem, but the solution has to lie with more accountability. We don’t want things to devolve into a situation where anytime a white person hires/appoints another white person their accused of racism, and we also don’t want the difficulty of proving a person discriminated against someone else to be exploited. I think more people being involved in the process could help. It’s easy for one person to quietly dismiss applications from minorities, but having some sort of oversight committee that can question the person why they chose one person over another may help. Or, maybe having an organization similar to the NAACP that can actively promote qualified minorities would help. Or, maybe it wouldn’t, but I think these suggestions are at least more fair than showing favoritism for any specific group.

The name of the group? I don't know that they had a name, or that it was anything more than a few jam sessions- his particular area of interest was the philosophy/aesthetics of improv (so, mainly jazz), and he evidently played with a lot of local musicians in that capacity, but I don't know how serious or regular any of these ensembles/jam sessions actually were. — Seppo

Oh, ok. Never mind then.

First of all, get well soon Pinprick. — Tobias

Thank.

No. The difference is in the legitimacy. — Tobias

Ok, I’m not getting this. Let’s say the amount stolen/taxed is $100. If I need that $100 to survive (for food, rent, whatever), I will suffer due to not having it, regardless of the reason why I don’t have it. Starving to death is starving to death. It’s not like my suffering will be alleviated or lessened somehow because I was taxed legitimately. I’M STILL STARVING TO DEATH!

Hmm, do you take antibiotics when you are ill? And if you do, do you take them indefinitely? You might say 'ahh but antibiotics is not a good thing, but a necessary evil'. — Tobias

I’d actually say taking antibiotics isn’t a moral issue, but I see what you’re saying. You probably have a point here.

Why would that one 'actually make a difference' and the other one would not? — Tobias

Because one’s relevant to the requirements of the job. I’m sure you’re not suggesting certain races are better at certain tasks or possess certain skills that others do not, are you?

It is all a matter of the goals you wish to attain. — Tobias

Yes, but why would your goal be to promote one race over another? The goal should be to find a good SCOTUS justice, right?

competence' may well be perspectival, bringing a dfferent perspective to the table may make the institution as a hole more competent. — Tobias

That makes sense, but I don’t believe being black, or white, necessarily means you have a “different” perspective. I mean, technically no two perspectives are alike, but it isn’t like only a black person can be just regarding issues of race.

It harms you more because you already have less options to begin with. — Tobias

Right, but what’s the point? That discriminating against marginalized groups is worse than discriminating against non-marginalized groups?

Cutting someone’s hand off would not be as bad as drowning them, but that doesn’t mean we should overlook it. It’s still bad.

This…

some people thought they were superior to others and thought up this whole classification of peoples they subjugated, based on things like skin color, facial and bodily features etc. — Tobias

Lead to this…

preferential treatment policies — Tobias

Policies/practices like refusing to hire minorities caused minorities to become marginalized. If these types of policies/practices would not have existed, then things would not have been as bad, even if the racist ideologies continued.

I'm pretty sure they took advantage. — praxis

Same difference. White people in power gave other white people advantages due to their race.

It's not morally good to take advantage, is it? — praxis

No.

Maybe I miss your meaning, 'prick; if not, however, then your comment is merely another non sequitur. — 180 Proof

I just mean power-sharing doesn’t justify racial discrimination.

Quick recovery; be well. — 180 Proof

Thank you.

Also, let's face it... I'm likely one of the only one's who'll be posting music from Japan, so I realize the audience is very limited for these choices. — Mayor of Simpleton

I’ve liked most of it. As far as Japanese music goes I also really like Maximum the Hormone and Geinoh Yamashirogumi. But that’s also about all I’m familiar with.

Also, I’ve never heard that Saul Williams song before (t.b.h., I’ve probably never heard any song by him, though the name does sound familiar). — Mental Forms

Maybe from this?

Yet the opening line of that Saul Williams song, I’m not sure if you know this or not, is actually taken (I’m certain, by way of inspiration) from Biz Markie’s the “Vapors.” It’s said at 0:34 in to its video. — Mental Forms

Cool. I wasn’t aware of that.

Another awesome band. My aesthetics professor in Montreal actually played in a band with some of the Godspeed members. Weird guy, but a good philosophy professor and an ace trumpet player. — Seppo

Was it A Silver Mt. Zion?

Sorry for the late reply, I got Covid.

:point: Are you for more power-sharing or less? — 180 Proof

It depends on how the power is obtained. The ends don’t justify the means.

No it is not. Say you are robbed of your money by a gang of thieves. That is harmful. Every year that same sum of money is being taxed by the state. You are losing the same amount of money. Equally harmful? Of course not. So motives matter. — Tobias

The difference in harm in this case is due to whatever trauma was inflicted by being robbed. So the examples aren’t comparable, imo. Maybe say a hacker takes money from your account and makes it seem like it’s legitimate taxation. In this case the harm is equal, because it’s the same amount of money you’re missing, right?

But there is no reason for it to go on idenfinately — Tobias

If the act were “good” then no harm would come from doing it indefinitely.

But on other criteria it is somehow miraculously fine? — Tobias

Yeah, criteria that actually makes a difference like education, skill level, competence, etc.

Who is more severely harmed by the apparently 'equal' traffic fines? — Tobias

Yeah, that’s a good point. At the moment I don’t have any reason to not go along with setting fines to a certain percentage of people’s wages. I’m not sure what this equates to in this context, but I’d also be fine with guaranteeing minorities/underprivileged consideration for positions. Maybe the president selects a handful of candidates that are diverse and then the senate narrows it down from there?

Because they are a marginalized group, others aren't, see above. — Tobias

Being discriminated against doesn’t only harm you if you’re part of a marginalized group.

I also feel it is unethical to take advantage of those with a disadvantage, but I don't see how it's unethical to give advantage to those with a disadvantage. — praxis

I don’t see how it’s ethical to give an advantage to someone because of their race. Isn’t that how races became disadvantaged in the first place? White people were given advantages because they were white.

Is this to be remedied by nominating another white male? — Fooloso4

No, I’m not saying another white male should be selected. I’m not saying I have all the answers, but I’m sure someone smarter than me could come up with a way to hold people, Biden in this case, accountable for whoever they select. Maybe there should be a diverse group committee that decides instead of just one person. Maybe presidents should have to “prove” that the person they choose for a position wasn’t due to racism, nepotism, sexism, etc. The NFL has what’s known as “The Rooney Rule”, which admittedly has not worked out that well, but I think that has more to do with enforcement of the rule than anything else.

Yes that is what I mean. You think all racial discrimination is equally wrong, but it isn't. It matter what the motive for discrimination is and what the consequences are. — Tobias

It’s equally harmful. I don’t think whoever is being discriminated against cares about the motive. That it harms them is all that matters.

No it doesn't lead to 95% male quotas, not if give preferential treatment to black women. I think you would agree with me no? — Tobias

Well, right, but my point is that if this preferential treatment continued indefinitely, it would be the same thing, only the roles would be reversed. Instead of 95% white males we would have 95% black females.

What do you mean by equality? — Tobias

Equal treatment of others. IOW’s no discrimination based on things like race, sex, religion, socio-economic status, etc.

Equal representation? — Tobias

This ideal is shortsighted in my opinion. Equal representation depends on equal interest in particular fields across all races, genders, etc. I have no reason to think that exists.

For example, suppose we wanted equal representation for female mechanics. Does this desire justify a trade school for mechanics only accepting female applicants? Do you think there’s just as many females that want to be a mechanic as males?

Now, this isn’t to deny that additional barriers may exist for certain demographic groups due to things like racism and sexism. And when that occurs it is unequivocally wrong, and work needs to continue to be done to improve the situation. But preferential treatment isn’t how to do so. Equality acts, like the equal opportunity laws I mentioned previously, is how you bring about change. If Biden were serious about this then why not extend these laws to cover appointed positions as well? We expect the average manager at business X to follow these laws, surely we should expect the same of our political leaders.

Most certainly. — Tobias

Then why wouldn’t the preferential treatment of black females be harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to other races/genders?

Why not? — Tobias

The categorical imperative is to imagine what would happen if everyone acted in such a way at all times. So I’ll ask you. What would happen if everyone showed preferential treatment to black women all the time?

However if the maxim is bringing about a more equal society it can, even by your own lights, because from your post it shows equality is important to you. — Tobias

Preferring one group over another doesn’t create equal opportunities.

Maybe not, but think about it and maybe that gut feeling will prove false. — Tobias

Maybe, and I truly hope it does, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

However do we already have a society where people with darker skin have the same opportunities as people with paler skin? No. — Tobias

I agree, but the way to change this isn’t to bypass the process by selecting whichever group you prefer. There shouldn’t even be a group you prefer.

(I'm sorry, but I'm back to posting jazz from Japan.) — Mayor of Simpleton

Not sure if your apology is directed at me, but I think I may have been misunderstood. My comments about the genres posted here weren’t meant to discourage anyone from posting anything. There’s some of that I actually like. I just didn’t want @Mental Forms to feel out of place. Well, that and I do like hip-hop. :grin:

No. A candidate from a pool of 'well-qualified black women' is preferred by an old white man — 180 Proof

And that’s fine, as long as the preference isn’t for white males? Why is preferring one race over another ok? Is it ok in any other situations?

Yeah, I also believe in "world peace", but ... :roll: — 180 Proof

But what? There seems to be a contradiction in agreeing with a law that prohibits racial discrimination, and also agreeing with excluding all but one race from consideration.

No in this case the dictionary was right because in the past the candidates have been excluded because they were held to be inferior. — Tobias

Perhaps, but I’m not going to try guessing what people believe.

Maybe you think all discrimination is equal, but it isn't. — Tobias

No, it’s that I think all racial discrimination is wrong. That is what leads to “95% white male quotas.” As long as racial discrimination continues how can there ever be equality?

It makes a difference whether you exclude someone on the basis of deeming that person inferior or whether you desire equal representation, or broaden the scope of perspectives or indeed correct for worse starting positions. — Tobias

Those seem like two sides of the same coin. It isn’t like white people don’t “justify” their racism. By stating that a particular race is better to appoint to a position, for whatever reason, you imply the other races are inferior.

Why would preferential treatment be harmful, disadvantageous or unfair? — Tobias

The preferential treatment of white males over minorities has been harmful, disadvantageous, and unfair to them, has it not? I guess I’m a bit Kantian at times, and this doesn’t pass the imperative test. We know where this road leads. Repeating the same acts (racial discrimination) that caused this problem in the first place doesn’t sound like a solution.

It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities. — Tobias

I have no issue with discrimination based on characteristics.

Lol... too much hip-hop? — Mental Forms

No. It provides a much needed respite from the pages of classical, jazz, avant-garde, etc. posted here. Keep ‘em comin’!

Redressing past wrongs and making starting positions qual is not the methodology that caused racism, thinking some races were inferior and some superior did. — Tobias

I think racial discrimination has to be included here. It is the mechanism through which racist beliefs are put into practice, and the actual actions are what causes harm.

As we see in the current example, racist thoughts need not accompany racial discrimination, but that doesn’t make the act any less harmful, disadvantageous, or unfair.

Based on the definitions I related, I don't think the nomination is racist. To be racist, it seems you must contend that a particular race is superior than another; that must be the basis of the distinction made. If the nomination isn't based on a belief in the superiority of a black woman over others because she's black or a woman, it doesn't appear to come within the definitions. I think you have an uncommon definition of racism. — Ciceronianus

Not to argue with the dictionary, but I am surprised at the emphasis on belief. In everyday language many acts are considered racist, typically any act that discriminates on the basis of race. But technically you seem correct.

Of course not, since no one is "entitled" to that job by "birth right". — 180 Proof

Yet a black female is somehow entitled to this position? Wouldn’t you agree that minorities have in fact been harmed by not being considered viable candidates for a plethora of positions? Do you agree with the equal opportunity acts?

Besides, for at least the last century there have been many "other qualified people of different races/genders" than Straight White Christian Men not even considered for appointment to the high court — 180 Proof

Right. And it was wrong that they were excluded. I would also say it was racist, but the dictionary disagrees.

Is that what you maintain--the nomination is based on the belief the black race is superior to the white race? — Ciceronianus

No. I’m maintaining that excluding all races and genders except black female from consideration for a position is racial (and gender) discrimination, which I equate with racism/sexism. Am I mistaken in equating the two?

Your blunt, literalist interpretation of the word 'racist' makes it impossible for you to see any effort to ameliorate past racial discrimination as anything but more racism. — Bitter Crank

I haven’t denied that this is an attempt at ameliorating past wrongs. I think it’s both. And I haven’t commented on whether or not it’s moral/immoral. That’s partly what I find interesting about this. Racial discrimination is typically on par with things like rape and murder when it comes to moral value, but in this instance racial discrimination can be argued to be good.

I honestly haven’t decided yet, but the optics are certainly awful. Whomever Biden chooses will now be viewed by some as the beneficiary to racial/gender discrimination. She herself may even believe that her skin tone and gender are the only reason for getting the position, which is unfortunate. Had Biden just kept his mouth shut and refrained from indulging in this political stunt, and simply appointed a black woman there’d be no issue. But instead it now seems that he’s doing this as a favor to black people and women, which implies that they otherwise are not qualified for the position.



Let me know if I’m misrepresenting you’re position, as that’s not my intention. From what I gather, you think acts, thoughts, policies, etc. can only be racist if they cause actual harm. You said that Biden excluding other races/genders from consideration only harms the “95% white make quota.” I take this to not count as actual harm. But, if there are other qualified people for this position of different races/genders are they not harmed by not being considered? Also, if there is someone who would do a better job than the woman he selects, wouldn’t that harm the public in general? This is a Justice of the Supreme Court who will, by its very design, be commenting and judging the most pressing judicial matters in the US. Shouldn’t Biden’s duty here be to ensure the best available person gets appointed?

I understand the subjectivity of determining who is best qualified, but unless there’s some reason to think a black woman is necessarily more qualified than other races/genders other races/genders should not be excluded from consideration. You’re suggestion that a black woman is likely more professional (i.e. qualified) than others due to her having to be because she likely experienced workplace discrimination is plausible, but unconvincing. Isn’t it equally likely that her experience of workplace discrimination creates a bias against those who are similar in some way to those who discriminated against her?

Assuming you're not disingenuous, your replies suggest you do not understand my post perhaps due to a sufficient lack of historical background on the issues of class race & sex/gender exclusion still at work in America. — 180 Proof

I understand your post, but largely don’t see the relevance. The question is whether or not appointing a person to a position on the Supreme Court based on their race is racist. Not whether or not doing so is justified. My thought is that it is racist, because racism is defined as discriminating based on one’s race. If you would respond to the questions I’ve asked, perhaps we can have a conversation.

As it stands now, I fail to see your reason for denying this is racist. If Biden would have said he would appoint a white male, would you find that racist? Do you define racism differently than I do? You’ve talked a lot about how racism against blacks has, and continues to, occur, and how SCOTUS has basically been exclusively white males, but how does any of that justify your stance?

News flash: that's not how this process is designed to work (certainly it hasn't in two and a third centuries). ↪ — 180 Proof

What are you saying here? That the system is inherently designed to be racist/sexist? That none of the last 250 years worth of appointees weren’t the most qualified?

The only thing "racist and sexist" is the 95% white male quota for SCOTUS. — 180 Proof

I’m not arguing that racism wasn’t applied in the past. Overt racism was the norm in this country until what ~50 years ago? But setting this up as some sort of revenge appointment, or reparation for past misdeeds is distasteful IMO. Biden’s just pandering to his base by calling attention to it. It actually makes it seem like the only reason this lady will be appointed is because of her race. In other words, it implies that if the appointment was made strictly by judging their qualifications she wouldn’t have gotten the job.

Besides, a black woman professional is far more likely than not to be "more qualified" than her white male peers because she has had to be (even expected to be) every step of the way throughout her career due to systemic discrimination against her on account of both gender and race. — 180 Proof

Maybe, maybe not. I think it’s a stretch to claim that every black female judge has experienced workplace discrimination.

That's true in some situations; in others, it isn't. Race and gender do not matter when you are hiring a hundred teachers; just got the best you can. The best person to be Pope, however, will be a Catholic male. — Bitter Crank

Ok, but that’s still discrimination based on religion and sex (and age as well, I believe). Just because that method may achieve the “best results,” doesn’t mean it isn’t discriminatory.

If you want someone sensitive to the issues inherent in cases concerning race and gender, a black woman would be the best person. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily. It isn’t like a male can’t be sympathetic to the plights faced by females. There were also white activists during the Civil Rights weren’t there? This type of thinking implies that there are qualities that can only be possessed by people of a specific gender/race, which is just another form of race (or sex) essentialism, correct?

If Biden meant that he will automatically exclude anyone who isn’t a black woman from consideration for the appointment, then that is both racist and sexist, as it is discriminating on the basis of both. The best person should get the job regardless of race, sex, etc.

Well, you’re right, but I was referring to the “sexism” found in attributing this sort of thing primarily to males.

I personally think this is largely nonsense - playing the flute would probably accomplish the same end, but it isn't as cool and there's no blood unless you do it wrong. And it is probably true that any activity that helps people take their minds of drug use and hanging out looking for trouble is helpful in some way. Even golf... — Tom Storm

I think there’s a difference between physically exerting your strength over another person and learning a skill like playing an instrument. It may not be PC to say, but I think a lot of men particularly have a need to exert their strength; whether it’s through violence, physical labor, or exercise. There seems to be a tension that can only be released through it. In this way, sports are a healthy way to release this aggressive impulse.

I think there’s a reason why you won’t find many (any?) flutists that are physically elite. Those who are exceptionally strong, fast, agile, etc. tend to pursue activities/occupations that allow them to demonstrate these abilities. And they do so because it’s intrinsically rewarding. It feels fun to knock the shit out of someone, especially when the social stigma against doing such a thing is lifted, so that there’s no need to feel guilt or remorse for doing and taking pleasure in what is usually considered immoral. The praise and potential for significant monetary gain also help reinforce it, of course.

"Does my butt look big in these pants?"

And that's art?! — baker

Maybe not art per se, but it is artsy fartsy :joke:

Just my two cents. :wink:

I think that while the influence you’ve gained from your wealth is important and worthy of considerable deliberation, what’s most important is who you are/become as a person. I would say the majority of people think the ultra wealthy are mostly greedy assholes who just use others to get what they want with no conscience. Just by being a nice person you could at least change some people’s opinions. Don’t be another bad example.

Also, I think you’ve mentioned some mental health concerns before; struggles with happiness, etc. This should be a great opportunity to see what makes you happy. Travel, live in the jungle, rub elbows in Dubai, be a philanthropist, whatever. I’m sure there’s something out there that can help make your life feel worthwhile. Or, if you’re happy with how your life is now, there’s always the option to just spend whatever is needed to maintain it and then donate or will the rest to someone, or several people, and let them decide what to do with it. I don’t think you’re obligated to do anything with it.

Pinprick, I think you have made an excellent argument that has not been made before. Clearly given that conversation with God, Jesus and God are not the same consciousness. — Athena

:up:

obviously god is not Christian. — god must be atheist

True. He obviously existed before Christianity did.

God would not pass the first test of morality based on empathy. Just like the OP said, except for a different reason. — god must be atheist

True, but I don’t see this in the OP.

Jews should associate with Nazis?
Blacks should make friends with KKK members? — baker

Someone has to take the first step towards change. Treating others with permanent disdain does nothing positive. Daryl Drake is a great example of what I’m getting at.

Really? You can peacefully coexist with someone who believes you should be dead or suffer forever, and you know they believe thusly? — baker

I don’t think anyone said they believe I should be dead or suffer forever. They simply believe that is what will happen if I do not change my ways. It’s God’s will, not necessarily theirs. So long as they’re “good Christians” they will also love their enemy (me) as themselves and love their neighbor. If they’re consistent with their adherence to Christianity they’ll at most pity me, and perhaps try to convert me. Sure, I can live with that.

So what is one to make of the moral character of folk who hold someone who tortures folk unjustly in the highest esteem? — Banno

I think we should judge other’s moral character based on the totality of their actions. Beliefs, in and of themselves, do not cause harm. So their beliefs are irrelevant. Even if we take things a step further and say that this belief causes them to ridicule, belittle, etc. atheists, that alone isn’t enough evidence to judge their moral character. Perhaps they also believe in giving to the poor, forgiving others their trespasses, etc. Are we to exclude these other, more noble, moral beliefs when we judge them?

Now let's get it all in perspective
Shift the objective, you've been misdirected
What's the purpose of another song to step to
If you stepping in the wrong direction
Thug introspection
Mindframe in the fast lane
Through with cocaine
Time's up, time to maintain
Before a nigga gets drafted
Cause you the number one pick, corn bread, cotton-crafted
Them people's army shot another brown kid today
And all you strapped little boys let 'em get away
So what you packin' for
You packin' for the war?
They gonna ship you out and put you and your mans on tour
Yeah, your Hummer came in handy
Son, your Air Force 1s are sandy
You'd better peep the plan, B
Before you call yourself a soldier
Get caught up on the wrong side and your little party's over
Put your blunt down, no time to front now,
Put your drink down, time to think now
We on the brink now
Where my peeps at, where the streets at?
Same cats that stole you is using you to steal Iraq

[Gunshot] Yo, I say let 'em shoot
My tongue is my gun aiming for the truth
They got a silencer and aimin' straight at the youth
And all their talk of terrorism's nothing but a spoof

We was the first type of oil that they ever stole
Nah, f*ck the oil metaphor son, we was gold
But let the truth be told, we was platinum
Now they want a deal and asking us to back them

War, don't start none, won't be none
We fighting for freedom
Yeah they say they is but son I don't believe them
Cause when there's violence in the hood you never see them
Unless they starting it
They got their heart in it
Now they got you thinking money is power
You're counting dead pres by the hour
And the one that's living, the Bible thumping Christian
Like y'all niggaz trying to cross out the mission
Listen, power is vision
You're keeping it real in a neighbourhood that's government sealed
Yo, let the truth be revealed
Before your freedom has failed and the innocent killed

[Gunshot] Yo, I say let 'em shoot
My tongue is my gun aiming for the truth
They got a silencer and aimin' straight at the youth
And all their talk of terrorism's nothing but a spoof

I'm hip to your games
Hip to the science of war
Propaganda make me fight but what am I fighting for?
My way of life, means and rights, give or take less or more
See through the eyes of the poor, plus I'm black to the core
Ignorance is on tour, booking stadiums and more
The days of Hitler painted pictures patriotic with gore
You raise a flag on a land, snatch a bald eagle's claw
And send a symbol on your currency to finance your war
I'm saying no
Not in my name, not in my life
Not by my hands, that ain't my fight
Not in my name
You wage a war against terrorists and violence
And try to wave your guns and fear us all into silence
No. Not in my name, not in my life
Not by my hands, that ain't my fight
Not in my name
You built your empire with natives and slaves
Like the truth on resurrect waging war from it's grave

Thanks!

Cool. I always thought it resembled wounds or blood. Reminds me of something else, but I can’t ever figure out what.

Didn't think to include mine? — The Opposite

Nah. I did like your previous one though, the face in the weather map.

My particular favorites in no particular order:

@James Riley
@Cartesian trigger-puppets
@StreetlightX
@Baden
@Wayfarer
@_db
@Gitonga
@NOS4A2

Any examples that cause problems for the JTB theory of knowledge? — TheMadFool

Here’s an “example” I thought of, and am curious about its implications. I’m not really sure how I feel about it. Anyways, here goes.

You make plans to meet a person you’ve never seen before over the phone (for whatever reason you can come up with). Through the phone call you know that this person is male, middle aged, and named Bob. Bob tells you he will be at restaurant X on Wednesday at 6pm, and that he’ll be wearing a blue shirt. You go to restaurant X at 6pm on Wednesday, see a middle aged man in a blue shirt, whom you assume is named Bob. You approach the man and ask if his name is Bob, and it is. However, it isn’t the Bob you’re supposed to meet. Was your belief that the man in the blue shirt’s name was Bob knowledge? It seems to be a JTB, but only coincidentally. But does that matter? It also seems to be just an issue with language. What exactly is meant by the term “Bob?” If it has the stricter meaning of “the person you’re supposed to meet” then you believing the man in the blue shirt is Bob is technically false, because it’s a different definition of the word “Bob” than the one you had in mind.

Knowledge is being defined as justified true belief, not just as justified belief. — Michael

Yeah, I think that’s a key point that is often overlooked.

I doubt it. I played football, basketball, baseball, and soccer growing up nearly every year. I’m also interested in philosophy, and social sciences in general. There’s actually a lot of strategy involved in game planning, schematics, etc. in football at the professional level. It isn’t uncommon for coaches to have somewhat of a background in logic or analytics.

Same. :smile: