you have no reason not to vote for Harris except that you want people to pay attention to you.
Yes. I want the Democrats to pay attention to me and change their policy. I’m asking why that is not the normal function of democracy.
you are still not understanding that the US does not have the power over the Palestinian genocide you believe they have.
Still at it then? This is why I gave you the paper. Me disagreeing with you about a conclusion is not equivalent to me not understanding. Whether America can influence Israel in this matter is not an established fact like the shape of the earth or 2+2=4. It’s an opinion. People disagreeing with you haven’t failed to understand something, they disagree.
protests. letters to senators and other politicians. political parties and go talk to people in the real world.
And why would politicians take any notice if we’re going to vote for them anyway?
politicians are often influenced by popular actions.
Yes, because they think they’ll lose/gain votes. But your advice has us eliminate that motive. They now can be assured of our votes no matter what policies they propose or implement.
would you rather have Harris in the White House or Trump?
False dichotomy. I’d rather have Harris with a stricter policy on arms sales to Israel. I believe that’s achievable. That you don’t is not a fact, it’s an opinion, I disagree with it, I don’t fail to understand it. Really, if you can’t grasp the basic distinction between theories and the facts on which they’re based then I don’t know how we can proceed.
You’ve misunderstood the paper
It’s not about information. The argument is about disagreement among epistemic peers. We all have the same information. You’ve not provided any information I didn’t already know. I’ve not provided any information you didn’t already know. We’ve been exchanging theories, not information.
The paper is about the status of disagreement in conclusions based on the same information.
As I said in my other comment, if you really can’t tell the difference between a theory and the facts on which it is based, then we can’t possibly have a rational discussion since rational discussion is premised entirely on that distinction.