It is not about acknowledgement, it’s about understanding the morality of the action. Most of the time, only they know the answer to that question.

In my opinion, in order for an action to be evil, the actor must know what is good or what is right behavior. While sometimes the actor acts with intent to cause harm, sometimes, the actor is ignorant of such things.

It wasn’t the Democratic voters that were the issue, they were never going to vote for Trump. Worst case scenario, they stay home. It was the independents and left-leaning Republicans that needed to be converted. There are a lot more of them, and they were frustrated by the southern border, the culture was and inflation.

Except that theory has been proven effective and theology is guesswork of desert peasants.

Scientific laws allow for probabilistic predictability.

It depends on your definitions. Religion puts nonexistent intentionality into the system by adding a diety. Science explains the existing system using the language of mathematics.

If that guy is in his 40’s he has lived a hard life. I’m surprised he is still conscious let alone mobile.

My experience with libreoffice is that the word suggestions come from my usage.

No I’m not. I am not interested in academic study. I am interested in real world application. I am aware of justified true belief and that most people don’t apply it. My curiosity is in how people acnually think about the concept.

That is like the home owner’s application of the scientific method: test the hypothesis until you decide it is a pretty solid system

Your description makes belief sound like willful ignorance.

It sounds like the real challenge is knowing when you have enough information to convert your educated guess into full-blown knowledge

What about the ideas that can be neither confirmed nor denied like the existence of extraterrestrial life or a machine of 100% efficiency?

What if you should have some doubt (belief) but due to ignorance or hubris do not and so you elevate a concept to ‘knowledge’ that should not rightfully be there? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m genuinely curious about that gray area of misplaced confidence.

So, if we haven’t studied the underlying axioms or foundation of a conclusion, we cannot have knowledge of it? That seems to imply the only things we have knowledge of are the things we have invested significant time and energy into. It’s that correct?

If so much is contextual, is there no knowledge based on truth or fact?

So the stronger the feeling of identifying with a concept, the stronger the belief that it is true?

What if the claim were false?

What if she wasn’t from Pitcairn? No big deal other than her credibility comes into question.

What if Gengis Kahn did not exist? Nothing lost, we already doubt our historical record.

What if Jesus did not exist? Suddenly the largest religion’s foundation is gone.

What if God doesn’t exist? Many people lose their reason for existing…

That which has enormous impact should require proof of truthfulness.

Bernie Sanders disagrees with your 2 Groups hypothesis

I dislike Trump as much as the next sane, intelligent human, but context matters. The ways specifically talking about going to NBC and running a show. And there, yes, ratings are all that matters.

This is not news. This is a one-sided venting without context or any other perspective on the situation.