I didn't say they do. But it was a philosopher who deployed this criterion for deciding the boundary question. I think the diss is inherent in the criterion.
In order to determine whether a 15-year-old volleyball player was transgender, Florida police sought out her medical records to determine any changes in her body weight and asked her teammates if they had ever seen her nude. One detective referred to the girl as "it"
Bold move for a philosopher to diss biologists and geologists like that.
Yeah, if you listen to the folks leading Uncommitted, they are very much concerned to keep Muslim, Arab, & Palestinian Americans in the Dem party. But they can't get even the tiniest scraps from Harris. It bodes ill.
Parts of his domestic agenda were excellent. His withdrawal from Afghanistan was excellent. Now he has covered his legacy in shit by supporting, arming, and paying for a genocide -- and very much in agreement with Wall Street donors. So that sucks.
"I don't like touching this stove, but..." [proceeds to bathe in lighter fluid and strike a match.]
Weigel's post is in bad faith, since no one seriously thinks a Harris loss would lead to a Palestinian state. That's not what the argument is about. But it is useful to portray your opponents as believing stupid things so that you don't have to think about the stupidity of your own position.
You are both correct about what politicians respond to. The unfortunate result is that, regardless of who wins in November, US support for Israel's genocide will continue. And the *global* effort of rich nations to repel and expel migrant populations will continue to ramp up.
If Hezbollah succeeded in killing Netanyahu in a huge rocket attack on Tel Aviv, do you think that would reduce Israel's bellicosity? Why would you think it will be any different with the death of Nasrallah, then?
I believe in a world where we choose not to invest in or support genocidal projects of conquest, displacement, and wanton murder.
