American relations with Israel plunged to their lowest point in a decade yesterday when the White House denounced as "unacceptable" statements by the Israeli prime minister comparing the US coalition-building in the Arab world to British appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s.
The Bush administration was reported to be furious with Mr Sharon's actions, and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told journalists that the president felt personally affronted by the comparison to Neville Chamberlain and the discredited policies of appeasement in the run up to the second world war. Mr Bush is an avid admirer of Winston Churchill.
An admirer of Churchill, you say? Explains a bit.
In A Preface to Philosophy, Woodhouse suggests that one of the primary benefits of treading the Pilgrim-path of Philosophy is the Baptism of a certain type of Tolerance into the Practitioner.
Some of you might hear that dreaded T-Word and immediately think that this is actually a reason not to practice Philosophy. However, while universal Tolerance is of course a Heresy, there are certain types of Tolerance which are Good and Beautiful and True, and there are certain things that ought to be tolerated
How might Philosophy increase Tolerance? What type of Tolerance? And of what? Mark this: when you run into your own Mistakes and have them corrected, and this happens to you repeatedly throughout your Studies, it starts to imbue a certain Humbleness. You understand that you're a frail Being prone to Error. And this can easily be projected outward onto others. You learn to have Patience with people who disagree with you. Part of you may wonder if it is you who is in Error on a particular Point. But even in cases where you are sure that you are Correct, absolutely sure, you understand that mortal Men make Mistakes when dealing with these Questions, and that they are genuinely, tremendously difficult to tackle. It's normal for people to make Mistakes when facing difficult Tasks, including answering difficult Philosophical Questions, and so you show them Patience. You tolerate their Ignorance. You understand that guiding them to the correct Answer could take Time, and that it might be unsuccessful.
Let us, therefore, bear with our erring Brethren, knowing full well that Truth is a rugged Summit conquered not by the swift and prideful, but meandered towards, even if not fully subjugated, by the slow, patient Footsteps of the Humble.
Some of you might hear that dreaded T-Word and immediately think that this is actually a reason not to practice Philosophy. However, while universal Tolerance is of course a Heresy, there are certain types of Tolerance which are Good and Beautiful and True, and there are certain things that ought to be tolerated
How might Philosophy increase Tolerance? What type of Tolerance? And of what? Mark this: when you run into your own Mistakes and have them corrected, and this happens to you repeatedly throughout your Studies, it starts to imbue a certain Humbleness. You understand that you're a frail Being prone to Error. And this can easily be projected outward onto others. You learn to have Patience with people who disagree with you. Part of you may wonder if it is you who is in Error on a particular Point. But even in cases where you are sure that you are Correct, absolutely sure, you understand that mortal Men make Mistakes when dealing with these Questions, and that they are genuinely, tremendously difficult to tackle. It's normal for people to make Mistakes when facing difficult Tasks, including answering difficult Philosophical Questions, and so you show them Patience. You tolerate their Ignorance. You understand that guiding them to the correct Answer could take Time, and that it might be unsuccessful.
Let us, therefore, bear with our erring Brethren, knowing full well that Truth is a rugged Summit conquered not by the swift and prideful, but meandered towards, even if not fully subjugated, by the slow, patient Footsteps of the Humble.
It's over. We will never again, unless this abomination is removed, make a text post. AI summaries are not something to be tolerated.
Behold, the power of AI:
This has been a boon for tutors. It's exceptionally common now for elementary, high school, and college kids to come to me for help and for my questioning to then reveal that they have no textbook to learn from, that they're supposed to learn just from the teacher's online PowerPoint presentations, that those PowerPoint presentations often don't make sense and have clearly not been proofread and come off like AI slop, and the teachers are extremely slow to respond and/or respond with AI slop messages.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Under my regime, there will be a three strikes-and-you're-out policy. Any three traffic offenses, no matter how small, within the same decade, will result in a permanent loss of your license. Your actions will have consequences. Those who drive without a license will be sentenced to mandatory hard labor in the mines.
n=16, but funny nonetheless. Wonder if it will replicate.
If a wife commits a crime, her husband ought to be held at least partially responsible. Same thing with his children.
Let me support the view known as ethical relativism. The truth of ethical relativism is shown by the fact that two persons might disagree over the moral rightness of a certain act and, if they are from different cultures or backgrounds, both may be correct. Now, anyone who denies this is authoritarian. Who am I to condemn the Eskimos for leaving their aged relatives on the ice to die? Moreover, anthropologists have been telling us for a long time that ethical relativism is true. Finally, the only alternative to ethical relativism is ethical absolutism, and we know absolutism is false.
Clear writing presupposes clear understanding; if you do not understand the point you attempt to get across, you can hardly expect your reader to be enlightened, no matter how pleasing your style of expression may be. There is no foolproof procedure for gaining this prerequisite understanding. But rereading your sources, participating in "think sessions" with your friends, conferring with your instructor...—all these strategies should help. "Think sessions," whether personal or collective, are especially important, for in philosophy it is easy to believe that you clearly understand key ideas because you have memorized words—when in fact you do not. This is why "cramming" for philosophy exams is often ineffective.