Author Topic: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon  (Read 292040 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KGB

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1581
  • Rep: -461
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3090 on: September 17, 2023, 02:51:58 PM »
5050 front shuv to manual,  NBD I want to see

She recently posted a manual front shuv out, so maybe it's next  :D


"Armed with seven rounds of space doo-doo pistols"

el chino

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1887
  • Rep: -382
  • ants suck!
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3091 on: September 17, 2023, 03:35:39 PM »
A Metaphysical Grounding Account of Knowledge.

John sees his coworker Nogot driving a Ford. By this evidence he forms a belief of the proposition p, ‘someone in the office owns a Ford.’ It so happens that Nogot is renting the car, but a different person in the office, Smith, does own a Ford. So it seems as though p is true and John has a justified belief in p, ergo it should be the case that John knows p. But it seems obvious that he does not.

In the following I will offer an account of knowledge that coincides with our intuitions as to its nature, explains the seeming contradiction of Gettier cases, and allows knowledge despite the skeptical paradox. I will first lay out my theory, then illustrate how it resolves the cases associated with Gettier and skepticism, and finally I will rebuke some potential objections.

Theory

My claim as to when S is sufficiently justified in her belief of p as to know p is as follows.
Grounding Theory of Justification (GT)
S knows p iff S believes p in virtue of being aware of some evidence whose existence is grounded in p’s truth.
When I say that the evidences existence is grounded in p’s truth I mean that the evidence only exists because p is true.

GETTIER

The Nogot case is resolved via GT because John witnessed Nogot driving a Ford he did not own, and therefore could have witnessed Nogot driving that Ford regardless of whether anyone in the office owned a Ford or not. The evidence wasn’t grounded in the proposition that someone in the office owns a ford. That someone does happen to own a Ford is just an irrelevant coincidence.
Consider the alternate scenario where John sees Smith pull up in his Ford and forms the belief that someone in the office owns a Ford. John did witness Smith driving his own Ford, which is evidence grounded in p’s truth. So, in this example, since John’s evidence for believing p, where p is the belief that someone in the office owns a Ford, is grounded in it being true that someone in the office owns a Ford, John knows p.

Consider another example. You are driving through the countryside and you see a barn. You form the belief, ‘there is a barn in that field.’ However barn façades have been put up all over the countryside. So even though you are looking at a real barn, it seems as though you have formed a true belief by luck, as it may have been the case that you saw a façade instead and formed the same belief.

But your evidence for the proposition p ‘there is a barn in that field,’ is that you are looking at a barn in that field. Had it not been a barn, but a façade, then obviously your belief would have been false, but that is irrelevant. Since you base your belief in p on the evidence of having seen an actual barn, and not a façade, you are sufficiently justified in your belief that there is a barn in that field for you to have knowledge that p. Were it the case that you formed the belief instead by looking at a barn façade than you would not have knowledge that p, regardless of whether p was true or not, because even if there were a barn elsewhere in the field it would be irrelevant. But because you form your belief on your perception of an actual barn, you know there is a barn in that field regardless of the irrelevant coincidence of nearby barn facades.
If that does not seem immediately intuitive consider the possibility you are instantaneously transported to a position in front of an actual barn, and form the belief ‘there is a barn in that field,’ and then are instantaneously transported back to your armchair. It does not seem like your knowledge of the proposition ‘there is a barn in that field’ should be in any way threatened by the existence of fake barns near-by.

Similar remarks hold for the mule/zebra case, the sheep case, the roommate case, and so on.

SKEPTICISM

Claims:

GT: S knows p iff S believes p in virtue of being aware of some evidence whose existence is grounded in p’s truth.
It is not the case that for S to know p S must know she knows p.

So, it is not necessary for S to know that she knows p to know p. Under GT this cashes out as the fact that S does not need to know the evidence she uses in justifying her belief in some proposition is indeed grounded in that proposition’s truth in order to know that proposition. It simply must be the case that it is.

The skeptic claims we have no knowledge because in order to have knowledge of any p, one must be certain that not-p is false. Since we cannot be certain not-p in regards to our sensorial experiences such as having hands, we can have no knowledge of any sensory perceptions.

This is false. It is enough for S to know p iff S comes to believe p based on evidence grounded in p’s truth. That is, given that S has evidence for p and that the evidence she has is metaphysically dependent on p being true, thereby entailing that p is indeed true, S knows p.

So, if the evidence S uses to form the belief p, where p is that she hands, is seeing her hands, then S knows p. If instead the evidence for is a simulation of hands or a deception causing her to see hands that arent’t there, S doesn’t know p/
The only way in which the skeptic can threaten knowledge in this manner is if they are successful in persuading S in coming to disbelieve p. If S is not so persuaded, and if her evidence is indeed grounded in p’s truth (that, e.g., is it isn’t the case that her evidence is the result of false sensorial input) then S is successful in knowing p. That is just to say that if the proposition S believes is true, and the evidence she uses is grounded in that truth, then S knows p.

OBJECTIONS

A)   It might be argued that GT entails one cannot gain knowledge via testimony. This is not the case. Consider the following.

Sophia looks through a telescope and finds a heretofore unseen moon revolving around Venus. She makes careful observations and calculations and so on until she is confident enough in her observation to tell Cryshawnda that she knows there is a moon revolving around Venus. Furthermore had there not been a moon revolving around Venus the evidence Sophia bases her belief on could not have existed.

Cryshawnda believes Sophia, and it is true that this moon exists, and that if it did not exist then the evidence Sophia uses in justifying her claim of knowledge to Cryshawnda would not exist. Then the evidence that Cryshawnda uses to justify her belief, Sophia’s claim of this moon’s existence (that is grounded in evidence that is grounded in the moon’s existence), would not have existed unless the moon existed. Witness: Had Sophia been mistaken, and had some evidence that would have existed regardless of whether or not a moon existed, then she would not have knowledge of that moon’s existence. Furthermore had she imparted that claim onto Cryshawnda, she would not be imparting knowledge. It is just because Sophia is sufficiently justified in her claim, just because her evidence is grounded in the truth of the relevant proposition, that Cryshawnda comes to have knowledge of that claim.

B)   Suppose a skeptical paradox of the following manner. The world is a computer program but is dependent on the actions of real world counterparts that influence their avatars in our world. So if you see a bird fly in this world, the simulation, it is just because a bird flies in the real world. Therefore when you witness a bird flying, it is true that a bird is flying, it seems you are justified in believing it, and furthermore that the bird flies is grounded in the fact a bird flies. But it still doesn’t seem like you know a bird flies.

In this example the bird simulation is in fact dependent on an actual bird flying, but the connection doesn’t seem necessary. Consider an analogous example. A barn façade in the field uses as its support an actual barn, via 2x4s connected from the actual barn to the back of the façade. Therefore if that actual barn were not there then the barn façade could not stand. That this is the case does not determine that the barn façade could not have stood without the actual barn, surely a different means of support could have been found. So our intuition that should you have seen the barn façade and came to believe “there’s a barn in that field,” you would fail to have knowledge of that proposition regardless of the existence of an actual barn is correct under GT. Similarly for the bird, that some simulation of a bird is in fact dependent on an actual bird does not entail that it is metaphysically necessary that the simulation is dependent on a real bird flying, for certainly the simulation could be recreated so as not to necessitate a real bird. So, since it is the case you could have seen a simulation of a bird flying without an actual bird flying, this does not pose a problem for GT.

C)   This account makes it almost impossible for anyone to be sure that he or she has knowledge. In order to say “I know p” one must be able to say “I know my evidence for believing p is such that p must be the case for that evidence to exist.” But the skeptical paradox defeats that claim in nearly every case, and many more mundane examples defeat that claim in most other circumstances.

I believe this is the most serious problem for GT. If I say, “I know my name is Ben.” Than under this theory that can be taken to mean that I know that I have evidence for believing as such that could never be defeated. Furthermore I have evidence for that claim that could never be defeated, an so forth. So, the issue is twofold, one is that the criteria for having knowledge is too high in the first place and that it leads to an infinite regress of evidential support, a problem raised for any evidential account of knowledge or justification.

The first fold is really not an issue with GT at all. The problem of propriety regarding the assertion of knowledge is not the problem of defining knowledge. My claim is that an agent has knowledge when she believes a proposition as a result of becoming aware of evidence that could not have existed unless the proposition were true. So, if she makes a claim of knowledge such as “I have hands,” and does so because she sees her hands and in fact her hands exist and are hers, she is correct in her assertion. If she makes the same assertion because she sees hands at the end of arms but in fact both are simulations or some other such thing, she is incorrect in her assertion. It might be the case that she was justified in making the claim both times, neither time, or in just the first case. That is a matter of debate regarding the propriety of assertion, not regarding the nature of knowledge.

The infinite regress is a claim against GT itself, but not one with much weight. The idea that there must be higher order knowledge to have knowledge at all, that you must know you know to know, has been largely abandoned. I personally believe that whatever the criteria for possessing knowledge may be, I’m advocating GT but even if I am wrong, the possession of higher order knowledge will not be a part of it, just because of issues regarding infinite regress. GT says simply that when an agent believes a proposition due to an awareness of some evidence which could not have existed without that proposition being true than she has sufficient justification to know that proposition. It suffices that she believes her evidence is appropriately grounded in the truth of the proposition, that it is so grounded, and, consequently, the proposition is true.

CONCLUSION

The Grounding Theory of Knowledge provides an account that agrees with common intuition regarding what it is to have knowledge, i.e., when an agent believes a proposition because she is aware of some evidence that exists only because the proposition is true
this reddit tier bullshit has to go, worse than beatrice
<iframe class="imgur-album" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" src="http://imgur.com/a/8ph4y/embed"></iframe>

Steely Daniel

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1515
  • Rep: 485
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3092 on: September 17, 2023, 03:38:17 PM »
Yeah and quoting the whole thing so we gotta scroll through it twice almost makes you just as bad. Just @ them and say your piece and be done with it. Fucks sake.

Hefe43

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • Rep: 177
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3093 on: September 17, 2023, 11:19:57 PM »
A Metaphysical Grounding Account of Knowledge…

Conclusion
Tyshawn seems like the kind of guy to hate everyone at least a little bit

This Thing Of Ours

grassblade

  • Guest
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3094 on: September 18, 2023, 12:15:02 PM »
Fabiana kicked off
Beatrice stays on

Fuck vans for real

mindfuzz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • Rep: 43
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3095 on: September 18, 2023, 12:27:14 PM »
Fabiana kicked off
Beatrice stays on

Fuck vans for real

Since when is Fabiana of? That's fucked if true.

left knee cap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Rep: 121
  • $$$$
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3096 on: September 18, 2023, 12:38:53 PM »
Expand Quote
Fabiana kicked off
Beatrice stays on

Fuck vans for real
[close]

Since when is Fabiana of? That's fucked if true.

I think it's pretty recent, of to Etnies. there was an event in Vancouver a couple days ago and she was wearin em


sus

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1811
  • Rep: 381
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3097 on: September 18, 2023, 01:09:07 PM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Fabiana kicked off
Beatrice stays on

Fuck vans for real
[close]

Since when is Fabiana of? That's fucked if true.
[close]

I think it's pretty recent, of to Etnies. there was an event in Vancouver a couple days ago and she was wearin em

Fabiana deserves Nike $$$

kook1234

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1043
  • Rep: 147
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3098 on: September 18, 2023, 01:09:49 PM »
nice lil cameo in the Leo Nike part

Atiba Applebum

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 15073
  • Rep: 261
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3099 on: September 18, 2023, 02:32:21 PM »
Expand Quote
Fabiana kicked off
Beatrice stays on

Fuck vans for real
[close]

Since when is Fabiana of? That's fucked if true.

Getting kicked off a team your brother and girlfriend are on is fucked…

…but my guess is she left for greener pastures, a program that knows the talent they have and treats her as such.

Murge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Rep: 427
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3100 on: September 18, 2023, 02:53:49 PM »
If Fabiana quit for a better check or anything I back it. But if she got booted while a fucking hack stays on that’s fucked.

Septa Bus

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Rep: -58
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3101 on: September 18, 2023, 03:16:25 PM »
If Fabiana quit for a better check or anything I back it. But if she got booted while a fucking hack stays on that’s fucked.


what's next? several interviews where she (B) said she came from nothing?
Expand Quote
This is shaping up to be Bunt of the Year
[close]
I hope you like home runs fucker

CDLusher

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Rep: -22
  • decidedly down river
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3102 on: September 18, 2023, 05:19:56 PM »
New FA IG clip story trying to prove the haters wrong and its................................................................painful

Phao Lo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • Rep: 56
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3103 on: September 18, 2023, 05:30:14 PM »
New FA IG clip story trying to prove the haters wrong and its................................................................painful

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxWhgdJL2OA/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ==

fakie nollie

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 3188
  • Rep: 1101
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3104 on: September 18, 2023, 05:34:53 PM »
Expand Quote
New FA IG clip story trying to prove the haters wrong and its................................................................painful
[close]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxWhgdJL2OA/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ==

The shuv 5050 back 180 out on the rail was pretty tight

Lenny the Fatface

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
  • Rep: 332
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3105 on: September 18, 2023, 05:43:59 PM »
If Fabiana quit for a better check or anything I back it. But if she got booted while a fucking hack stays on that’s fucked.

The funny part is Fabiana would have to do Jake Johnson type shit to get the level of engagement the slap dudes give Beatrice.

douchenozzle

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 496
  • Rep: 37
  • "I am the party"-DLR
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3106 on: September 18, 2023, 06:01:33 PM »
Expand Quote
New FA IG clip story trying to prove the haters wrong and its................................................................painful
[close]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxWhgdJL2OA/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ==

The fake steeze on the Manuel front 180 out was like she was frozen in carbonite

Noble Experiment

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2803
  • Rep: 285
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3107 on: September 18, 2023, 07:30:45 PM »
The shuv 5050 bs 180 out and blunt were unexpected.
That “arm steeze” is hard to watch though, intentional or not.

easymoneysniper

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 727
  • Rep: 13
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3108 on: September 18, 2023, 07:34:58 PM »
The shuv 5050 bs 180 out and blunt were unexpected.
That “arm steeze” is hard to watch though, intentional or not.
agreed. some tricks were cool but holy shit her style feels forced. it's embarrassing.

Murge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Rep: 427
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3109 on: September 18, 2023, 07:44:55 PM »
Expand Quote
The shuv 5050 bs 180 out and blunt were unexpected.
That “arm steeze” is hard to watch though, intentional or not.
[close]
agreed. some tricks were cool but holy shit her style feels forced. it's embarrassing.

I ain’t got blunts now but her blunt looked like the ones I’d did as a kid on the bottom of marble stairs. Where your board is rubbing on the higher stair so it balances and locks you in. I would just pretend to boardslide a way higher stair and I’d land on a lower one in blunt and it would slide. I’m not saying she’s doing this but it kinda looks like a cheater blunt. Which I know to well about.

edward shay

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Rep: -14
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3110 on: September 18, 2023, 08:02:15 PM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The shuv 5050 bs 180 out and blunt were unexpected.
That “arm steeze” is hard to watch though, intentional or not.
[close]
agreed. some tricks were cool but holy shit her style feels forced. it's embarrassing.
[close]

I ain’t got blunts now but her blunt looked like the ones I’d did as a kid on the bottom of marble stairs. Where your board is rubbing on the higher stair so it balances and locks you in. I would just pretend to boardslide a way higher stair and I’d land on a lower one in blunt and it would slide. I’m not saying she’s doing this but it kinda looks like a cheater blunt. Which I know to well about.

Yo murge, do us a favour and shut the fuck up.

Tireeedd

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Rep: 87
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3111 on: September 18, 2023, 08:05:03 PM »
nah foo you shut the fuck up

funeral_tuxedo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 4386
  • Rep: 1249
  • old and in the way
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3112 on: September 18, 2023, 08:11:30 PM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The shuv 5050 bs 180 out and blunt were unexpected.
That “arm steeze” is hard to watch though, intentional or not.
[close]
agreed. some tricks were cool but holy shit her style feels forced. it's embarrassing.
[close]

I ain’t got blunts now but her blunt looked like the ones I’d did as a kid on the bottom of marble stairs. Where your board is rubbing on the higher stair so it balances and locks you in. I would just pretend to boardslide a way higher stair and I’d land on a lower one in blunt and it would slide. I’m not saying she’s doing this but it kinda looks like a cheater blunt. Which I know to well about.

I never learned bluntslides so I'm going try this technique asap

sharkin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2721
  • Rep: 500
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3113 on: September 18, 2023, 08:30:01 PM »
Like half of those clips are several years old but this right here is some A tier trolling from rice beater


apport

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1111
  • Rep: 316
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3114 on: September 18, 2023, 08:43:01 PM »
i think she just needs to lean into how naturally sloppy her skating is, because some of those tricks would be cool if not for all the extra pageantry. stop trying to style out pure slop, just get loose and nasty with it.

Coldpizza

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 615
  • Rep: 199
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3115 on: September 18, 2023, 09:08:36 PM »
Expand Quote
If Fabiana quit for a better check or anything I back it. But if she got booted while a fucking hack stays on that’s fucked.
[close]

The funny part is Fabiana would have to do Jake Johnson type shit to get the level of engagement the slap dudes give Beatrice.

For real.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

yghartsyrt

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 1324
  • Rep: 273
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3116 on: September 18, 2023, 09:44:57 PM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
New FA IG clip story trying to prove the haters wrong and its................................................................painful
[close]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxWhgdJL2OA/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ==
[close]

The fake steeze on the Manuel front 180 out was like she was frozen in carbonite
Who?


But on the topic at hand: she clearly progressed compared to the 50 shuvit out level.

icedancer

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
  • Rep: -12
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3117 on: September 18, 2023, 10:38:57 PM »
Why even include that first Ollie?

Murge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Rep: 427
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3118 on: September 19, 2023, 03:49:17 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The shuv 5050 bs 180 out and blunt were unexpected.
That “arm steeze” is hard to watch though, intentional or not.
[close]
agreed. some tricks were cool but holy shit her style feels forced. it's embarrassing.
[close]

I ain’t got blunts now but her blunt looked like the ones I’d did as a kid on the bottom of marble stairs. Where your board is rubbing on the higher stair so it balances and locks you in. I would just pretend to boardslide a way higher stair and I’d land on a lower one in blunt and it would slide. I’m not saying she’s doing this but it kinda looks like a cheater blunt. Which I know to well about.
[close]

Yo murge, do us a favour and shut the fuck up.

Nah.

Murge

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • SLAP Pal
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Rep: 427
Re: Beatrice Domond pro for FA very soon
« Reply #3119 on: September 19, 2023, 03:52:47 AM »
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
The shuv 5050 bs 180 out and blunt were unexpected.
That “arm steeze” is hard to watch though, intentional or not.
[close]
agreed. some tricks were cool but holy shit her style feels forced. it's embarrassing.
[close]

I ain’t got blunts now but her blunt looked like the ones I’d did as a kid on the bottom of marble stairs. Where your board is rubbing on the higher stair so it balances and locks you in. I would just pretend to boardslide a way higher stair and I’d land on a lower one in blunt and it would slide. I’m not saying she’s doing this but it kinda looks like a cheater blunt. Which I know to well about.
[close]

I never learned bluntslides so I'm going try this technique asap

If you do try them on stairs and say it’s a 3 stair wax the second and bottom stair. The mentally think of board sliding the second stair but like one where you don’t fully commit to. Think like you’re trying to rocket Ollie into a boardslide on the second stair so you’ll back truck will land in blunt on the bottom. Stair. Hope it helps it’s the only way I could mentally trick my self into doing them.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2023, 06:45:45 AM by Murge »