5 ms·

There's a massive global discussion on how Vitamin C helps prevent/cure the common cold. Appealing to massive global discussion solves nothing. > I'm trying

There's a massive global discussion on how Vitamin C helps prevent/cure the common cold. Appealing to massive global discussion solves nothing. > I'm trying to determine what made you think your view was relevant in this particular situation.

white-flame 9y ago
oh my goodness. Are these links not evident? use term for pejorativeness! -> good term has been corrupted! -> term corruption is inevitable! -> implications when used in this context! -> watch out for fallacies in implications! and from there... you're laser-focused on extracting something. Which step isn't clear? Also, an implication of "your view is irrelevant" is completely antithetical to discussion forums at all (not to mention completely insulting), and yet here you are tons of replies later. At a purely technical level, your view of dissent of the flagged parent might be claimed not relevant, because it didn't agree with whatever they said. "There's a massive global discussion on how Vitamin C helps prevent/cure the common cold. Appealing to massive global discussion solves nothing." It's not in the media, and it's a pretty settled deal with some dissent, similar to flat earth or global warming or whatever. The media discredits or ignores that view of vitamin C. However, vitamin C isn't a social issue. The thrust is if continual presence in the media (where outrage is literally presented as a global discussion of social issues), and to a lesser extent continual presence in non-fringe major site internet discussions, are valid indicators of a major social issue? Also, have you made a somewhat tacit agreement that it is at least globally discussed? That's progress!
- tomlock 9y ago
  Why are you focusing on global discussion? Perhaps you're trying to move the goalposts? Plenty of things are globally discussed. Bigfoot for example. I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view.
  - white-flame 9y ago
    I'm focusing on it as a step in showing it as evidence that outrage is a serious issue for many people and not some lone wolf claim by me. This is something you specifically requested evidence for and this backs the claim, which you've essentially agreed to now, and seem to be trying to find a backpedal approach. "I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view." I don't believe you. In order to provide evidence that this is truly your purpose, explain what precondition makes you pore into my view in particular and not others. Also, explain the deficiencies in my many presentations and explanations to allow me to help you determine it. Plus, you're completely ignoring my requests to determine your view, so your persistence comes across as quite hypocritical.
    - tomlock 9y ago
      As I've said before, I don't think any evidence you've presented is sufficient. Issues "for many people" have previously included: Whether women should vote or not. Was that an indicator of a serious issue, or should the answer have been obvious?
      - white-flame 9y ago
        What sort of thing would you accept as evidence for the claim "a particular social issue is being discussed seriously in a widespread manner"? Social systems are not science experiments, and your verbage doesn't seem to indicate any social study background. What specific predicate would disqualify major media presenting the discussion as a serious social issue (and not a dismissive hit piece like vitamin C or bigfoot) as being a reliable indicator of the subject being discussed seriously in a widespread manner? Given that it's a serious discussion in a widespread manner. I'm sure whether women should vote or not was seriously argued in the newspapers and such, many writings and essays poring the issue, and the subject being discussed in common discussion forums of the time.
        tomlock 9y ago
        >verbage verbiage How do you personally differentiate between hit pieces and serious social issues?

white-flame 9y ago

oh my goodness. Are these links not evident? use term for pejorativeness! -> good term has been corrupted! -> term corruption is inevitable! -> implications when used in this context! -> watch out for fallacies in implications! and from there... you're laser-focused on extracting something. Which step isn't clear? Also, an implication of "your view is irrelevant" is completely antithetical to discussion forums at all (not to mention completely insulting), and yet here you are tons of replies later. At a purely technical level, your view of dissent of the flagged parent might be claimed not relevant, because it didn't agree with whatever they said. "There's a massive global discussion on how Vitamin C helps prevent/cure the common cold. Appealing to massive global discussion solves nothing." It's not in the media, and it's a pretty settled deal with some dissent, similar to flat earth or global warming or whatever. The media discredits or ignores that view of vitamin C. However, vitamin C isn't a social issue. The thrust is if continual presence in the media (where outrage is literally presented as a global discussion of social issues), and to a lesser extent continual presence in non-fringe major site internet discussions, are valid indicators of a major social issue? Also, have you made a somewhat tacit agreement that it is at least globally discussed? That's progress!

tomlock 9y ago
Why are you focusing on global discussion? Perhaps you're trying to move the goalposts? Plenty of things are globally discussed. Bigfoot for example. I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view.
- white-flame 9y ago
  I'm focusing on it as a step in showing it as evidence that outrage is a serious issue for many people and not some lone wolf claim by me. This is something you specifically requested evidence for and this backs the claim, which you've essentially agreed to now, and seem to be trying to find a backpedal approach. "I'm sorry you feel like I'm "laser-focused on extracting something". I'm just trying to determine your view." I don't believe you. In order to provide evidence that this is truly your purpose, explain what precondition makes you pore into my view in particular and not others. Also, explain the deficiencies in my many presentations and explanations to allow me to help you determine it. Plus, you're completely ignoring my requests to determine your view, so your persistence comes across as quite hypocritical.
  - tomlock 9y ago
    As I've said before, I don't think any evidence you've presented is sufficient. Issues "for many people" have previously included: Whether women should vote or not. Was that an indicator of a serious issue, or should the answer have been obvious?
    - white-flame 9y ago
      What sort of thing would you accept as evidence for the claim "a particular social issue is being discussed seriously in a widespread manner"? Social systems are not science experiments, and your verbage doesn't seem to indicate any social study background. What specific predicate would disqualify major media presenting the discussion as a serious social issue (and not a dismissive hit piece like vitamin C or bigfoot) as being a reliable indicator of the subject being discussed seriously in a widespread manner? Given that it's a serious discussion in a widespread manner. I'm sure whether women should vote or not was seriously argued in the newspapers and such, many writings and essays poring the issue, and the subject being discussed in common discussion forums of the time.
      - tomlock 9y ago
        >verbage verbiage How do you personally differentiate between hit pieces and serious social issues?