The thing is that when Americans voted for the oldest Presidential candidate ever, with Harris as the VP, they were effectively saying they were okay with her as President. So, it's safe to have some faith in Americans on this one!
Absolutely correct. And Trump is very beatable. The Democrats have loads of candidates who could beat him (including, IMO, Biden, but that's in the past, now).
The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you're right.
Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.
I used to work in a school with disabled kids, so I did a few fire drills.
As other people here have said, there are areas like stairwells where the kids with mobility issues waited (with adults, of course!) during fire alarms. Fire crews would've been told about us and come and got those kids first in the event of an actual emergency.
OP has given us no info about the candidates they're considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There's no merit to encouraging RFK's views, so Biden should be OP's choice.
If you can spare the time or money, volunteer and donate to the campaign in places they can actually win.
EDIT: Also, vote Democrat if there are any other elections going on at the same time. If Trump does win, the only chance of holding him to any kind of account is to have as many Democrats in positions of power as possible.
Sincerely, someone who can't vote in your elections but still lives with the knock-on effects!
*EDIT 2: Absolute necro-editing to change this to say Vote Harris.
Most people everywhere are very politically unaware. Here's a decent site that demonstrates this. Basically, the knowledge we (by which I mean humans, not just Americans, of which I am not one) have leads us to make inaccurate assumptions about the other stuff.
I mean, if I said to you, 'Calculate 13x16' (or some other sum you don't know off the top of your head) you could either do it or not do it. That would be a willed choice, whether or not you knew the answer.
I think this is probably it. I think this argument is strongly related to the idea of consciousness as an emergent property of sensory experience. I find it simple to imagine the idea of a body with no will or no consciousness (i.e., a philosophical zombie). But I find it very difficult, almost impossible, in fact, to imagine a consciousness with no will, even if it's only the will to think a given thought.
But my body also takes actions which I don't control and of which I'm not conscious. E.g., normal cell death and replacement (granted, I would eventually notice if this stopped, but not in the short term). I don't have the illusion of control over those actions, but I do have a sense (real or not) of control over others. My question is, why do I have that sense if it's not real?
The premiss involves the idea that it would feel different, that my deliberate acts would feel (like cell replacement) like a thing that happens, rather than a thing I'm doing. Granted, if I were unconscious of all my acts, it wouldn't feel like anything (like my experience of x-rays, which is a non-experience), but then I would be unconscious. So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, are you suggesting that the sense of will is a property of consciousness, and that consciousness is itself an emergent property of sensory experience?
The thing is that when Americans voted for the oldest Presidential candidate ever, with Harris as the VP, they were effectively saying they were okay with her as President. So, it's safe to have some faith in Americans on this one!