You’ve assumed the OP is downvoting because of the wrongness of the argument rather than the lack of validity.

Name one what? One post that commits a logical fallacy? A logical fallacy? You’ve been downloaded for creating a vague argument.

No assumption was made on the accuracy of the argument only on the validity of the argument,therefore no fallacy was committed,. On the other hand you committed the Hasty generalization fallacy by assuming OP’s intent.

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.

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

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.

Similar to Green Mountain Salsa. Nothing says authenticly Mexican like Vermont Salsa

The Attorney General does not keep people in prison, they only prosecute cases… That’s the parole board.

‘…voluntary mandatory shift coverage.’

Someone should be gifted a dictionary for Supervisor Appreciation Day.

There is an old fable that tells of two Asian monks walking down a dirt road and they came to a stream. At the stream there is an imperious woman of noble birth waiting impatiently for her carriage to be freed frob the muddy bank so that she can continue on her journey. She turns to the the monks and shouts at them to carry her across the stream. The younger monk freezes in uncertainty because their vows forbid them to touch a woman. The older monk approaches the woman and offers to carry her on his back. The entire trip across the stream she is shouting orders and complaining about his efforts. When they reach the other side she turns from him, ignoring him completely and turns her attention to continuing on her way. The older monk continues on his journey and the younger monk follows. They are silent for hours, the younger monk becomes more and more enraged at their treatment by the noble woman. Finally, he says to his companion, “Aren’t you angry at that woman because of her treatment of you when you carried her across the stream?” The older monk replies without breaking his stride, “I put her down hours ago.”