(02-05-2022, 10:47 AM)zedro Wrote: The problem here is the definition of the word "knowing", you have to keep in the context on this reality, and understand that it is not fixed state either, otherwise the term is meaningless. The saying is "I know enough to know I cannot know everything"...not "anything". That is silly and eliminates any functionality and wisdom.
And I'm sorry Patrick, but you are (miss)using the concept in order to refute/deny things you do not want to see or believe by convenience, and to dismiss that which is presented by others, it's as simple as that.
If this was 1930s Germany, I could certainly 'know' the human rights abuses that were occurring. Others would/did of course claim otherwise because it does not match their beliefs. This is the crux of the dispute, not some philosophical dead end concept to avoid seeking truth. Frankly your original post to deny all knowledge is exactly part of the well of indifference. So you may opine endlessly about how it's all an illusion, but within this framework, it is the literal embodiment of catalyst.
Not much else to say on this.
Can we define knowing as the things you have understand and prooved for yourself?
You can add year 2020 as repetition to the year 1930.
https://www.ostfildern.de/Politik+_+Verw...Cgung.html
Quote:"In order to ensure that the ban on assembly is observed, the use of direct coercion, i.e. the influence on persons by simple physical force, aids to physical force or the use of weapons is threatened. This is proportionate after weighing the opposing interests. It is necessary because milder means that would deter the potential assembly participants from carrying out the prohibited assemblies are not apparent. In particular, the threat of a penalty payment under Section 23 of the State Administrative Enforcement Act would not be equally effective. The threat of direct coercion is appropriate, since the negative effects for the person concerned are not recognizably out of proportion to the protected property of physical integrity of the passers-by and other assembly participants.
...
The immediate execution is required in the special public interest, since the prohibition of the assemblies serves the protection of the high-quality legal interests protection of the physical integrity of the passers-by and assembly participants and thus outweighs the interest of individuals to let such assemblies continue to take place for the time being without registration under assembly law until a decision on an objection. The purpose of this general order can only be achieved by the immediate development of the legal effect.
...
The public announcement of this general order shall be made on January 27, 2022, and it shall enter into force on January 28, 2022."
https://www.ulm.de/-/media/ulm/zoea/down...00-uhr.pdf
Quote:"In order to ensure that the mask requirement is complied with, the city of Ulm threatens the use of direct coercion, i.e., the exertion of force on persons by means of simple physical force, aids of physical force or use of weapons.
This is proportionate after weighing the conflicting interests (§§ 40 LVwVfG, 66 para 1 PolG). It is necessary because milder means that would deter the potential assembly participants from complying with the mask requirement are not apparent. In particular, the threat of a fine (§ 23 LVwVG) would not be equally effective.
The threat of direct coercion is appropriate, since the disadvantages are not recognizably out of proportion to the advantages.
The city of Ulm does not fail to recognize that the threat of direct coercion to enforce the mask requirement represents an - albeit minor - encroachment on the freedom of assembly of the assembly participants.
However, due to the serious health risk and the already multiple implementation of the unregistered assemblies in massive disregard of the regulations of the CoronaVO, the disadvantages are not recognizably out of proportion to the overriding high interests of the general public."
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)