5 ms·

I would love to hear WHY he's skeptical. I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't.

by boona 10y ago

I would love to hear WHY he's skeptical. I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't. Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say rather than just paint them as idiots because they don't believe what you believe.

mwfunk 10y ago
Why would you assume that someone who mentions Thiel's statements about women's suffrage hasn't heard his arguments? Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say rather than just paint them as idiots because they don't believe what you believe? Also, do you think that it is even theoretically possible for someone to make a meaningful argument that women's suffrage is somehow a bad thing? I certainly don't.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
vasilipupkin 10y ago
I am not painting anyone as anything. It is mathematically and logically correct to assume that there is substantial likelihood that when you hear someone say something idiotic, then that person saying that idiotic thing is in fact an idiot. If I hear additional information, I am happy to revise my opinion if necessary. But innocent until proven guilty is not necessary, this is not a criminal court
- boona 10y ago
  >mathematically and logically correct There is nothing mathematical or logical about value judgements. Those are two fields that pride themselves in that. You are deciding that the opinion is idiotic because it's not your own opinion. >If I hear additional information, I am happy to revise my opinion if necessary. But for the time being you're willing to paint someone as an idiot without knowing why they've developed certain opinions. It's a classic case of the fundamental attribution error.
  - vasilipupkin 10y ago
    You don't need to know why someone thinks that 2 times 2 is 6 to assume that person is at least somewhat an idiot. Women's right to vote is pretty much equivalent to that. Also notice my phrasing: substantial likelihood
    - fdsaaf 10y ago
      Women's suffrage (and suffrage in general) may be a good idea. When you say that the case for it being a good idea is as strong as that for a mathematical proof, you're discrediting yourself, since you're smart enough to know that political ideas can never achieve the rigor of proof.
      - vasilipupkin 10y ago
        you are clearly missing the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation is not to claim that 2 times 2 is equal to women's suffrage, but to simply state the obvious: when somebody says something that sounds pretty obviously idiotic, the likelihood that this person actually is an idiot goes up dramatically.
metheus 10y ago
Shall we extend the same curtesy to those who oppose other forms of universal suffrage? > I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't. It means nothing of the kind. Occam's razor suggests, rather, that he reasons differently than you (or at least me). > Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say In theory, if we had infinite "compute time" in our lives to hear and evaluate all the arguments of those advocating regressive politics, then yes, sure. But we don't. Instead, we rely on a cluster of markers to heuristically determine if it is likely that someone has anything to say that doesn't just reduce trivially to the same BS you've already heard. In this case, we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences of women having a political voice. It is quite obvious that he has a ton of raw intellectual horsepower in that brain, but equally clear that he has no novel, reasonable justification for disenfranchising women.
- boona 10y ago
  >we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences of women having a political voice ... but equally clear that he has no novel, reasonable justification for disenfranchising women. Hilarious! This is exactly what I'm talking about! You have no idea how he got to his position, but you've already made up your mind as to how he got there. And to top it off, you go on this big rant that places you above him in terms of virtue because obviously he's "an arrogant economic royalist" and you're not therefore you're better. It's fine with me if you want to behave that way. All I'm suggesting is that if you want to be intellectually honest, then you need to explore the 'why' of a person's viewpoint, rather than commit the fundamental attribution error and simply make up the 'why'.
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    Your description of "intellectually honest" is actually intellectually dishonest. In the United States, we generally understand the right to political autonomy, and the right to vote in particular, to come from a citizen's existence as a citizen (which itself is derived from Enlightenment principles of inalienable human rights). There are nearly no philosophical exceptions to this and only a few pragmatic ones (e.g. age of majority). The question of women's suffrage is by itself a reasonable litmus test of whether someone is politically sensible and, by this measure, Mr. Thiel can be judged insensible. To judge Mr. Thiel as politically insensible on the basis of his opposition to women's suffrage is by definition intellectual honesty. Given the long history of philosophical, political, and jurisprudential consensus that produced the 19th Amendment, it is in fact intellectually dishonest to entertain the possibility that Mr. Thiel has a novel set of arguments that could justify the disenfranchisement of women as a class. People are justified in being skeptical of Thiel based on his radical assertion that women's suffrage is a mistake and they are behaving sensibly when they express wariness about other claims he might make based on his established predilection for asserting dangerous claims against the political autonomy of others. EDIT: grammar, readability.
internaut 10y ago
> I would love to hear WHY he's skeptical. I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't. It is to do with social programs and taxes. Libertarians are overwhelmingly white and male. Why this would be the case is interesting, it might be biology at work but let's stay on point. Women are overwhelmingly not libertarian. Therefore if 50% of the voters are in favour of social building programs then that is what government policy will enforce, forever, in a democracy. Whether this is morally/fiscally right or wrong is beside the point. Bluntly that women can vote means libertarian policies are impossible unless large numbers of women decide to become libertarians. You can be the judge of whether this is fair or not.

by boona 10y ago

mwfunk 10y ago

Why would you assume that someone who mentions Thiel's statements about women's suffrage hasn't heard his arguments? Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say rather than just paint them as idiots because they don't believe what you believe? Also, do you think that it is even theoretically possible for someone to make a meaningful argument that women's suffrage is somehow a bad thing? I certainly don't.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

vasilipupkin 10y ago

I am not painting anyone as anything. It is mathematically and logically correct to assume that there is substantial likelihood that when you hear someone say something idiotic, then that person saying that idiotic thing is in fact an idiot. If I hear additional information, I am happy to revise my opinion if necessary. But innocent until proven guilty is not necessary, this is not a criminal court

boona 10y ago
>mathematically and logically correct There is nothing mathematical or logical about value judgements. Those are two fields that pride themselves in that. You are deciding that the opinion is idiotic because it's not your own opinion. >If I hear additional information, I am happy to revise my opinion if necessary. But for the time being you're willing to paint someone as an idiot without knowing why they've developed certain opinions. It's a classic case of the fundamental attribution error.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  You don't need to know why someone thinks that 2 times 2 is 6 to assume that person is at least somewhat an idiot. Women's right to vote is pretty much equivalent to that. Also notice my phrasing: substantial likelihood
  - fdsaaf 10y ago
    Women's suffrage (and suffrage in general) may be a good idea. When you say that the case for it being a good idea is as strong as that for a mathematical proof, you're discrediting yourself, since you're smart enough to know that political ideas can never achieve the rigor of proof.
    - vasilipupkin 10y ago
      you are clearly missing the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation is not to claim that 2 times 2 is equal to women's suffrage, but to simply state the obvious: when somebody says something that sounds pretty obviously idiotic, the likelihood that this person actually is an idiot goes up dramatically.

metheus 10y ago

Shall we extend the same curtesy to those who oppose other forms of universal suffrage? > I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't. It means nothing of the kind. Occam's razor suggests, rather, that he reasons differently than you (or at least me). > Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what others have to say In theory, if we had infinite "compute time" in our lives to hear and evaluate all the arguments of those advocating regressive politics, then yes, sure. But we don't. Instead, we rely on a cluster of markers to heuristically determine if it is likely that someone has anything to say that doesn't just reduce trivially to the same BS you've already heard. In this case, we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences of women having a political voice. It is quite obvious that he has a ton of raw intellectual horsepower in that brain, but equally clear that he has no novel, reasonable justification for disenfranchising women.

boona 10y ago
>we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences of women having a political voice ... but equally clear that he has no novel, reasonable justification for disenfranchising women. Hilarious! This is exactly what I'm talking about! You have no idea how he got to his position, but you've already made up your mind as to how he got there. And to top it off, you go on this big rant that places you above him in terms of virtue because obviously he's "an arrogant economic royalist" and you're not therefore you're better. It's fine with me if you want to behave that way. All I'm suggesting is that if you want to be intellectually honest, then you need to explore the 'why' of a person's viewpoint, rather than commit the fundamental attribution error and simply make up the 'why'.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  Your description of "intellectually honest" is actually intellectually dishonest. In the United States, we generally understand the right to political autonomy, and the right to vote in particular, to come from a citizen's existence as a citizen (which itself is derived from Enlightenment principles of inalienable human rights). There are nearly no philosophical exceptions to this and only a few pragmatic ones (e.g. age of majority). The question of women's suffrage is by itself a reasonable litmus test of whether someone is politically sensible and, by this measure, Mr. Thiel can be judged insensible. To judge Mr. Thiel as politically insensible on the basis of his opposition to women's suffrage is by definition intellectual honesty. Given the long history of philosophical, political, and jurisprudential consensus that produced the 19th Amendment, it is in fact intellectually dishonest to entertain the possibility that Mr. Thiel has a novel set of arguments that could justify the disenfranchisement of women as a class. People are justified in being skeptical of Thiel based on his radical assertion that women's suffrage is a mistake and they are behaving sensibly when they express wariness about other claims he might make based on his established predilection for asserting dangerous claims against the political autonomy of others. EDIT: grammar, readability.

internaut 10y ago

> I would love to hear WHY he's skeptical. I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information that I don't. It is to do with social programs and taxes. Libertarians are overwhelmingly white and male. Why this would be the case is interesting, it might be biology at work but let's stay on point. Women are overwhelmingly not libertarian. Therefore if 50% of the voters are in favour of social building programs then that is what government policy will enforce, forever, in a democracy. Whether this is morally/fiscally right or wrong is beside the point. Bluntly that women can vote means libertarian policies are impossible unless large numbers of women decide to become libertarians. You can be the judge of whether this is fair or not.