4 ms·
How is a commenter's potential conflict of interest not relevant?
by akvadrako 8y ago
How is a commenter's potential conflict of interest not relevant?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AsyncAwait 8y agoSubtract the OP's posting history. Is what they wrote still relevant and valid? Yes? There's your answer.
- fitpolar 8y agoEveryone technically has a conflict of interest or premeditated motivation. An argument should stand on its own merit, regardless of who makes it. Analyzing anything other than the argument is immature.
- ghusbands 8y agoCalling someone's argument or stance immature is immature.
- fitpolar 8y agoWith that mindset nobody should use that word. We should wipe it from the dictionary.
- EliRivers 8y agoAnalyzing anything other than the argument is immature. Yet sometimes it leads to a better outcome than just analysis of the argument alone. Context is real. Context matters. Automatically disregarding real information on the grounds of "maturity" ideology can lead to a worse outcome, so it doesn't seem like the best course.
- fitpolar 8y agoWhile context is important, I’ve found that the context of who someone is personally is rarely beneficial when being objective. If anything, this approach is anti-ideology, as you are not taking ideological bias into account...and there’s way too much ideological bias in discussions these days. I think that’s what I meant by maturity.
- stef25 8y agoIt's not because there may be a conflict of interest that he's wrong. He's mainly just explaining the legal background of this event.
- simias 8y agoA conflict of interest would mean that they have an undisclosed interest in pushing that narrative (say, that they have stock in Huawei, that they're a Chinese official or something like that). The parent comment discloses no such thing. Having an opinion is not a conflict of interest. At worse you could argue that the poster is biased, but then in this types of geopolitical discussions who isn't? Certainly not me.