|
Josef bugman posted:That and, as mentioned previously, I don't think intrinsic goods should be able to lead to bad things. That just means that nothing can be intrinsically good ("Hitler was a vegetarian") and you have to come up with some other word for things that are usually good but sometimes bad people do them or they are bad in some contrived example ("wheels are bad because what if you use a wheelbarrow to throw kittens into a volcano"), putting you back where you started.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Taffer posted:Trump voters were idiots pulled in by a con man but... Biden voters weren't? What politician isn't a con artist? It is the job of every politician to make themselves universally liked, and to fool people into believing that they will get something out of voting that politician into office. If the only thing they get is warm fuzzies, they have been conned. Every time we vote we are getting conned. We are not better than the Trump voters. If anyone in this scenario has the moral high ground, it's the people who don't vote, because they realize there is no move that they can take that is not serving the interests of a con artist. The difference is that there is a logical argument for Trump voters being conned: some white Obama voters in dying rust belt towns thought he would do things to bring back jobs, but he didn't and just did generic Republican policies with even more racism. I'm not sure I agree that they were conned (unclear that thinking Trump would bring back jobs is actually why they voted Trump) but it's at least fact based and follows from the premises. As far as I can tell, the full extent of the argument that Biden voters were cheated is "all politicians are equally bad but I am above it all because I am very smart". Like Discendo Vox said in the OP, assuming that everything is equally bad just results in you throwing out everything that disagrees with your preconceptions, because it isn't possible to be equally skeptical of everything.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Well maybe I'm the idiot, now I'm just confused. The Hill tweet is from this morning. The article in the tweet is from last night though. If I did timezones correctly, the rocket crashed in the Indian Ocean half an hour after the article was published.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Claims about the state of glaciers in Antarctica and the rate they are melting can often be sourced back to a handful of geologists and glaciologists (who spend long months in the region for measurements and analyses), and they certainly have a deep interest in spreading that message. Does that mean we should question the truthfulness of what they are saying? Also, the "doubt all sources" method fails badly here because it takes a lot of specialized knowledge to evaluate those claims, and trying to self learn enough to evaluate them isn't worth the effort. It's also an open research question, and some misinformation comes from people who appear to be credentialed, so "trust the scientists" isn't guaranteed to work. As someone who isn't deeply immersed in the field, you get better information if you come up with a framework to work out whom to trust (eg. major international scientific organizations are more reliable than a press release) and then trust them. If you try to doubt all sources you end up believing the sources that agree with whatever your preconceptions were.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:You don't want a single framework, you want a toolkit. Requoting the same part from the OP: Yeah that was bad wording on my part, I meant that the glacier retreat is a good example of a place where doubting everything is harmful (because you doubt everything that disagrees with what you already thought) The international organization isn't automatically right where it disagrees with press releases, but if a piece of science journalism cites one press release as the reason international organizations are wrong that's an important bit of information that should probably affect how you read it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 19:37
|
|