6 ms·

Not sure how your comment relates to my post. Are you saying you'd work with a libertarian (or a communist) but not one that believes in something you think is

Not sure how your comment relates to my post. Are you saying you'd work with a libertarian (or a communist) but not one that believes in something you think is a conspiracy theory?

tzs 10y ago
Essentially. It's not the belief that matters to me, it's the process of arriving at that belief that is important. (I'm talking about beliefs where the belief itself is irrelevant to one's suitability for whatever joint endeavor I'm considering with them. If I was, say, looking for someone to help me slaughter some cows, for example, then people who have a strong belief that all killing of animals is murder would probably be unsuitable, no matter what process led them to their beliefs on animal killing). Beliefs that involve conspiracy theories are not necessarily signs of poor reasoning ability. Many things that were conspiracy theories have turned out to be true--but they were always conspiracies that were limited in scope. The conspiracy theories that raise a red flag about the reasoning ability of those who believe them are the ones that require the conspiracy to involve so many people over such a big area that it would be impossible to keep it secret, or that require the conspirators to have such vast control over so many aspects of government and business that they could easily make anyone who tried to expose them disappear. Take bike paths for example. There are people who oppose the construction of bike paths. I've seen at least two reasons for objecting to bike paths. One objection I've seen raised was from people who thought that the street markings for the bike paths were ugly. They did not want ugly streets in their neighborhoods. If someone objects to bike paths and this is their reason, all I can infer from that is that their notion of what is ugly doesn't match mine. I find a street with a bike line no more or no less ugly than one without a bike lane. Another objection I've seen is that the purpose of bike paths is to make cities easier for people to get around in, in order to encourage more migration from rural areas to the cities, so that when the UN sends troops to take our guns away and enslave us under "Agenda 21", we'll be nicely packed in cities. A tightly packed population is easier to surround and disarm than a spread out rural population. If someone objects to bike paths, and delaying our enslavement by the UN is their reason, I'm going to infer that they are an idiot.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  Seems reasonable. Critical thinking is the key.

Not sure how your comment relates to my post. Are you saying you'd work with a libertarian (or a communist) but not one that believes in something you think is a conspiracy theory?

tzs 10y ago

Essentially. It's not the belief that matters to me, it's the process of arriving at that belief that is important. (I'm talking about beliefs where the belief itself is irrelevant to one's suitability for whatever joint endeavor I'm considering with them. If I was, say, looking for someone to help me slaughter some cows, for example, then people who have a strong belief that all killing of animals is murder would probably be unsuitable, no matter what process led them to their beliefs on animal killing). Beliefs that involve conspiracy theories are not necessarily signs of poor reasoning ability. Many things that were conspiracy theories have turned out to be true--but they were always conspiracies that were limited in scope. The conspiracy theories that raise a red flag about the reasoning ability of those who believe them are the ones that require the conspiracy to involve so many people over such a big area that it would be impossible to keep it secret, or that require the conspirators to have such vast control over so many aspects of government and business that they could easily make anyone who tried to expose them disappear. Take bike paths for example. There are people who oppose the construction of bike paths. I've seen at least two reasons for objecting to bike paths. One objection I've seen raised was from people who thought that the street markings for the bike paths were ugly. They did not want ugly streets in their neighborhoods. If someone objects to bike paths and this is their reason, all I can infer from that is that their notion of what is ugly doesn't match mine. I find a street with a bike line no more or no less ugly than one without a bike lane. Another objection I've seen is that the purpose of bike paths is to make cities easier for people to get around in, in order to encourage more migration from rural areas to the cities, so that when the UN sends troops to take our guns away and enslave us under "Agenda 21", we'll be nicely packed in cities. A tightly packed population is easier to surround and disarm than a spread out rural population. If someone objects to bike paths, and delaying our enslavement by the UN is their reason, I'm going to infer that they are an idiot.

programmarchy 10y ago
Seems reasonable. Critical thinking is the key.