nsrxn

joined 2 months ago
[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social -1 points 6 days ago

" And every Nader voter who was not an idiot know from the polls that Nader would not win."

future knowledge is an impossibility

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social -1 points 6 days ago

"With Gore instead of Bush, there would have been no Iraq War, for one thing"

this can't be proven, either

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social -1 points 6 days ago

"If everybody who voted Nader had voted for Gore instead, there would have been no wiggle room for the Supreme Court to butt in."

this can't be proven

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 3 points 6 days ago (7 children)

the democrats or the republicans?

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

you can't know what would happen in a world where there were never guns. I'm not asking for anything. I'm pointing out we can't possibly know what such a world would look like

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 6 points 6 days ago (4 children)

gore won that election. the supreme Court stole it.

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

since you can't prove a counterfactual, we will never know

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 points 6 days ago

oof. one week old account shilling for israel

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 4 points 6 days ago (6 children)

one week old account shilling for a political party

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

where is the full paper?

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social -1 points 1 week ago

your semantics are dull

[–] nsrxn@mstdn.social 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

you don't need to accept either claim. you can suspend judgement.

try reading into epistemology

view more: ‹ prev next ›