I’m not sure he did?

TIL Kant = Bukowski

Yeah, probably best for you to switch to creative writing or something.

Oh, you’re literally a child. That... explains a lot.

cogent rebuttal, dude

So... who makes the “rules”? What you’re saying find completely against the consensus opinions of the medical and scientific establishment, do it can’t be that. It’s not in keeping with any modern ontological scene that I know of, either. Are you a creationist? Did... did he devil create people with different genetics…

Wow, not caring that your argument doesn’t hold water. It’s like you’re a bigot or something! Weird.

Holy circular logic, Batman!

Well, Connecticut sure as shit didn’t vote for those people. “How many children have to die before...” might, tragically, have a quantitative answer.

Well, no, it is definitely none of those things. It is a little... is delusional the word I’m looking for?

Serious question, what about it is “cheapening?” I’ve heard that sentiment a lot and I’m just not sure what it means. Help?

People seriously forget that Nixon was the worst person to ever be President, not the worst President by a long shot.

They’re extremely straightforward so I can’t imagine anybody would have a hard time remembering:

By that standard anyone from Ike Turner to Cab Calloway could be considered the “inventor” of Rock and Roll. Rock and Roll is American instrumental dance music intended for consumption by a white audience more than any actual musical style. And Alan Freed invented that shit.

No, like James Randi, he was one of those magicians who’s all like “This shit is super easy to fake, which I know because I once made a living faking it, stop fleecing people by pretending you actually have magical powers, because that shit don’t exist.” It was after his death that his wife became a true believer in…

Yes, but it follows necessarily from that that nothing can ever be invalidated or falsified and that no consensus reality exists. And that’s really no way to run a school. At this point you’re arguing against discourse full-stop.

To clarify, you believe that nothing can ever be known, and even a priori truths are meaningless?

Once again, the judgement based on personal opinions and like/dislike. Who are you to determine moral bankruptcy? Who are these professors and students to make that judgement? Based on what? Well, it is like and dislike. You may see those as strawmen, but they are not. They lie at the very root of your system of…

Does that apply to former secretaries of state?

No, I firmly disagree with you on the question of whether universities should be somehow required to give a platform to people their faculty and students consider quacks. I think that’s about as far from academic freedom as you can get.