1.“Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception.”
2.“Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions.”
3.“Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it.”
4.“This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored.”
5.“To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing.”
6.“Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified.”
7.“Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties.”
8.“Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels.”
9.“Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags.”
10.“In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment.”
11.“The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration.”
12.“A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions.”
The Duhem-Quine thesis can be true and we can work with what appears to be most useful without divesting in it completely. I’m surprised to see it mentioned, I’m unsure if it’s something you are knowledgeable on (even if in passing) or an anachronism that folks on the internet tend to use when they’ve heard of something and reflexively use it as a non-sequitur for convenience’s sake.
At any rate why not clearly acknowledge the theses you put forth and the apparent empirical evidence which is contradictory? One could still argue (where argue is related to its older latin form, arguere; to make clear) and work towards a discussion instead of ignoring claims or finding exceptions to discredit, all the while ignoring the ethos of what is being argued?
A reasonable claim is you are close-minded (refusing to engage with claims on their level) or looking to be intentionally belligerent and for the life of me I can’t understand why. What I won’t do in the less than pleasant space of not knowing why–which is what my comrades tend towards–is accuse or otherwise dismiss claims and make attacks on character. Not that it doesn’t have its place and is not well-reasoned in its own way, rather it’s not something I am particularly fond of.
I know what D.-Q. is, if that’s what this wall of text I don’t have time resources to keep on processing means.
The rest isn’t worth anything as you get the same attitude you show and can’t pretend to be better afterwards.
-Looks at 10 lines of text
“Nobody has time to read all of that”.
Are you doing a bit? Do you really think 10 lines of text is a wall of text?
I don’t know, I think it’s valid that some folks find larger walls of text (to use their phrasing) off putting. I don’t know the intention of the other person.
EDIT: huh ok they are from a federated instance… that sorta sours and grounds my perspective a bit…
They haven’t spent years reading 20-paragraph lefty memes like the rest of us
Leftist memes are the length of Ulysses and all the replies are all “so tru bestie :)”