4 ms·
So you decline to provide evidence that the article positively > state[s] that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even vali
by ethbro 7y ago
So you decline to provide evidence that the article positively
> state[s] that well-executed, fact-supported, scientific arguments are a superior (or even valid) form of policy debate
We both agree that the article goes on at length about the recklessness of fact-based arguments on HN.
Furthermore, I point to two direct quotes that I characterize as anti-fact and elevating non-factual or (debatably in the case of the latter) semi-factual methods of discussion to the same level as fact-based discussion.
You decline to provide evidence rebutting those two points, and instead cite the "emphasis" of the surrounding paragraph as a reason those two points should be ignored.
Does that accurately describe your position?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 18pfsmt 7y agoThe argument appears to be that we need more emotion and intuition, and less facts and data. It's absurd, and quite scary. I have never made a good decision while in an emotional state, and my father warned me about doing so in my teens; though he was too subtle for me to get the point being made. Still, I react to extremist rhetoric on HN with vitriol that is often unhelpful. During Obama's admin, I was actively flagging political content, and the extremist stuff was kept at bay. We were also calling out FB and Zynga/ Farmville and their dark patterns, not calling for government action, but personal discipline to stay away.