4 ms·

That there will be no reasonable approach is correct. pence is not a man to be reasoned with. He doesn't know whether or not evolution is real and espouses teac

That there will be no reasonable approach is correct. pence is not a man to be reasoned with. He doesn't know whether or not evolution is real and espouses teaching intelligent design in schools. He is a climate change skeptic and he believes conversion therapy for gays should be publicly funded[1]. 1. http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/ http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/...

DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
On the surface, it sounds like your saying that Pence can't be reasoned with based on a particular conclusion he's reached. If that's what you meant, it sounds like a bit if a logical stretch.
- thomyorkie 10y ago
  If one has a tendency to reach unreasonable conclusions, is it not justified to question their ability to be reasoned with?
  - anonbanker 10y ago
    such a justification is dangerous and counter-productive, should you wish to continue having the ability to empathize with others in the future.
  - DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
    But your original post didn't simply state that you were doubtful if he could be reasoned with; you made a stronger statement: "pence is not a man to be reasoned with." I think that stronger statement is questionable for a few reasons: (1) It ignores the subjective element of your assessment regarding which of Pence's positions are reasonable or not reasonable. I very much doubt everyone on Hacker News would consider all of your strongly held beliefs rational, and vice versa. But that should be the starting point of our discussions, not the end of them. (2) You gave some examples of Pence's conclusions which you consider absurd, but you didn't give clear evidence that his reasoning processes are flawed that he's "not a person to be reasoned with". For example, if you could point to some discussions where he was unable or unwilling to adhere to basic, simple rules of logic, that would bolster your case.
    - thomyorkie 10y ago
      I don't disagree. For the record, I didn't make the original comment.

DoofusOfDeath 10y ago

On the surface, it sounds like your saying that Pence can't be reasoned with based on a particular conclusion he's reached. If that's what you meant, it sounds like a bit if a logical stretch.

thomyorkie 10y ago
If one has a tendency to reach unreasonable conclusions, is it not justified to question their ability to be reasoned with?
- anonbanker 10y ago
  such a justification is dangerous and counter-productive, should you wish to continue having the ability to empathize with others in the future.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
  But your original post didn't simply state that you were doubtful if he could be reasoned with; you made a stronger statement: "pence is not a man to be reasoned with." I think that stronger statement is questionable for a few reasons: (1) It ignores the subjective element of your assessment regarding which of Pence's positions are reasonable or not reasonable. I very much doubt everyone on Hacker News would consider all of your strongly held beliefs rational, and vice versa. But that should be the starting point of our discussions, not the end of them. (2) You gave some examples of Pence's conclusions which you consider absurd, but you didn't give clear evidence that his reasoning processes are flawed that he's "not a person to be reasoned with". For example, if you could point to some discussions where he was unable or unwilling to adhere to basic, simple rules of logic, that would bolster your case.
  - thomyorkie 10y ago
    I don't disagree. For the record, I didn't make the original comment.