Charles Blattberg
banner
blattbec.bsky.social
Charles Blattberg
@blattbec.bsky.social


What are the secret rules of engagement?

https://philpeople.org/profiles/charles-blattberg

Political science 66%
Sociology 16%

Blue books = denial.

You're working with the wrong philosophy of language. Check out Charles Taylor's The Language Animal (2016).

Rawls was (literally) not a serious thinker.
philarchive.org/rec/BLAPA-12
Charles Blattberg, Politics, Anyone? - PhilArchive
A critique of John Rawls' gamification of justice.
philarchive.org

Yes, I can see the resemblance with an AI Conquistador.

You mean like in that song?
youtu.be/9-WBZMRFFkU?...
The Tragically Hip - Locked In The Trunk Of A Car (Official Video)
YouTube video by TheTragicallyHipVEVO
youtu.be

I am, I really am. Very much so. But you're a pink bunny.

In what sense do I base my argument on being "an anesthetic"? I don't understand. And who, and in what positions, do you think I failed to talk with? Jewish historians? Pro Hamas protestors? I don't follow.

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

While I very much appreciate your efforts, this post ultimately serves only to feed antisemitism. Here's why: open.substack.com/pub/charlesb...
We’re Getting Antisemitism Wrong
And it’s undermining our fight against it
open.substack.com

Good for them. Aristotelians are right that, rather than "means," we should more often than not speak of "towards-the-ends."

Answer: the vehicle's speed limit should adjust depending on what the GPS indicates it is. But even before GPS, they could've at least set it at 120. They didn't for the same reason they've been denying the realities of Covid: bullshit.

Since you're an engineer, I'll raise what I believe is a common sense objection to speed cameras: Why do they allow vehicles to be built that go faster than the speed limit?

I provide links to 100+ articles of "Covid research cited in scholarly journals and/or trustworthy popular media" and you call them "fantasies"? And despite repeated requests, you offer not a single link to a paper supporting your point of view.

Someone needs to go back to persuasion school!

You read all the articles (e.g. docs.google.com/document/u/0...) and expect me, who has no choice but to follow the most credible seeming authorities, to take your judgment over that of all the peer reviewers and LLMs. Why would I do that? Why would you?

Too bad for me, since I hate wearing a mask.
COVID research & implications
Covid research & implications Purpose: This document is a running curation of Covid research cited in scholarly journals and/or trustworthy popular media, with the goal of forming a story about the i...
docs.google.com

You're begging the question (sorry, I'm a philosopher): you can't just declare the papers you disagree with to be "bad" when that's what's at issue here. Just link to ONE paper that suggest the chances of serious damage from a Covid infection is far lower than 5%. Please, I'm not going to ask again.

I've asked for a citation (the LLMs support the words they string together with links to peer reviewed studies - check for yourself), and you've replied with "I don't care," "No, total BS," and "Just no."

What am I supposed to think? I'd dearly like to be persuaded by you, but you're not helping!

If you have an alternative figure to those given by Gemini, ChatGPT, etc., with a proper study to back it up, I'd very much like to see it! Plus, what about applying the precautionary principle to what is, after all, a virus that's only 5 years old? Haven't we still much to learn?

A 1 in 20 chance, plus concern for all of the immunocompromised who deserve to leave decent lives too, makes me think that the inconvenience of wearing a mask is far outweighed by the good it does.

Well that's not very reassuring, especially since I consider you perhaps the best anti-Covid scaremonger out there. Gemini gives a 3.5% figure and, combined with all of the other possible organ damage, etc., I'm led to conclude that a 5% chance of serious complications is reasonable.