3 ms·

A debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstr

A debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.

Karunamon 11y ago
That's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  It's actually completely compatible with logic: Source X claims Y. I know very little about Y. I know a fair amount about X, and what I know indicates that X is an unreliable source. Therefore, I will not significantly alter my beliefs about Y until a more reliable source than X comes around.
  - pkinsky 11y ago
    Fortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      There is a nonzero cost of verifying, analyzing, and engaging with any text. The more substantial the text, the larger the cost. I don't have to read another Reason article to know that it's got the same systematic blindspots Reason articles have, and I don't think I could convince anyone of that, so I just communicated my stance and went on. There's nothing 'illogical' about it. I did not state my argument; I just stated my position. I think the charge that this violates basic logic is making a poor assumption: that absence of my argument is the same thing as not having an argument. I don't want to make the argument. I want to snark about Reason. So I did. Shrug.
      - civilian 11y ago
        Cool, then maybe you should go to reddit.com/r/politics?
      - pkinsky 11y ago
        There was a nonzero cost to making this post. Why did you bother?

Karunamon 11y ago

That's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.

aidenn0 11y ago
It's actually completely compatible with logic: Source X claims Y. I know very little about Y. I know a fair amount about X, and what I know indicates that X is an unreliable source. Therefore, I will not significantly alter my beliefs about Y until a more reliable source than X comes around.
- pkinsky 11y ago
  Fortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    There is a nonzero cost of verifying, analyzing, and engaging with any text. The more substantial the text, the larger the cost. I don't have to read another Reason article to know that it's got the same systematic blindspots Reason articles have, and I don't think I could convince anyone of that, so I just communicated my stance and went on. There's nothing 'illogical' about it. I did not state my argument; I just stated my position. I think the charge that this violates basic logic is making a poor assumption: that absence of my argument is the same thing as not having an argument. I don't want to make the argument. I want to snark about Reason. So I did. Shrug.
    - civilian 11y ago
      Cool, then maybe you should go to reddit.com/r/politics?
    - pkinsky 11y ago
      There was a nonzero cost to making this post. Why did you bother?