Go become a Muslim

Israël is our only real friend in the region

Every other country in the middle East is either our puppet or an ally of necessity

Like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan

or turkey

@LustrousMandrill get in vc

@Buelli especially turkey

I'll take the arab pp over the jewish one any day

There it says "the west" now

Britain is an arab country

@Deleted User wtf I was about to join VC and then you left

I did?

Yes

Mere minutes ago

Get in chill voice? @LustrousMandrill

I didn't mean to leave

@Sasha

joiin vc

goodnyaght everynyan! Merry Christmas! atm all i have is star wars related media to consume.

Remember reach.

@Deleted User You arent really a pyrrhonist there are skeptical problems that make you unable to make any fallible knowledge ascriptions under any context , in the face of disagreement with regards to those problems ,the pyrrhonist wouldnt make any fallible knowledge ascriptions imo fallibilism,contextualism isnt reconcilible with pyrrhonism.

When did I make fallible knowledge prescriptions?

wat

At face value... it doesn't seem that fallibilism, contextualism and pyrrhonism are incompatible

but u do u famm

@Deleted User if you are a contextualist that means in ordinary languange situations you can make fallible knowledge ascriptions even though during philosophical disagreement you say you dont have knowledge by the high knowledge standard the skeptic demands

you said you were a contextualist in the past

how do i know that i said that?

@Castore

@Deleted User if you are a contextualist you would fallibly know it based on your memory

How do I know that

<:Feelsok:643818539454562304>

@Deleted User If you know it based on your sense experience (ie your memmory in this case)in a fallible way then you know it in the absence of challenges that make you not sure about wether you know it or not or in the absence of possible defeaters in ordinary context that would include socratic questioning or constant questioning about how do i x that raise skeptical doubts .
However if you would ask the fallibilist what reason he would have to believe in fallibilism or how does he know fallibilsim then the fallibilist might say that he has a fallible reason to believe in fallibilism or that he fallibly knows fallibilism that is in the absence of challenges,questions,reasons that make him doubt fallibilism so what you are doing now would be diallectically ineffective (ie keep asking how do i know that?).
Now this would be circular and theres disagreement about wether this is a vicious or non vicious circularity in the face of that disagreement or future possible disagreement on that discource the pyrrhonist would completely suspend belief because of some psychological constraint not because of some adherence to rational norms.
That would mean he would suspend belief about fallible reasons to believe and fallible knowledge ascriptions and fallible reasons to believe in fallible reasons for belief and wether he can fallibly know fallibilism its clear to me that this is not what you are doing rather you are a fallibly knowing fallibilist or fallibly knowing contextualist.

How do I know that?

I think the issue here is