4 ms·

You implied they were true (or at least questioned it). I gave my arguments as to why I think they are both false, A) being a lack of evidence, B) imperialism

You implied they were true (or at least questioned it). I gave my arguments as to why I think they are both false, A) being a lack of evidence, B) imperialism as a more believable explanation with more evidence. Ball is in your court

lliamander 6y ago
I agree that both of Stefan's claims are more likely to be false. But as factual claims I think they are better dealt with by arguing against them rather than simply banning. Of course, one can make a factual claim in bad faith in order to stoke controversy. It would be nice to limit this, but it happens so often and I don't see a principled way to prohibit them as a class. On the other hand, I don't see how someone doesn't get banned for saying things like "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." or "#CancelWhitePeople"[1]. If we're going to ban people, those who say things like that against any demographic would be my first choice. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534
- opnitro 6y ago
  Parent simply asked for citations on the ideological leanings of Molyneux. I make no claims on how best to to regulate the massive multinational corporations who control what amounts to the digital commons, as I have no answer :)
  - lliamander 6y ago
    Fair enough. One of their posts was flagged, so I wasn't able to read the full context. And while I may have my preferences, I don't know how to best to regulate those digital platforms either.
nailer 6y ago
Now rate limit is over: My post didn't say write that Molyneux's statements were true. My post didn't 'imply' they were true either - they provided possible arguments both for and against. The point is that you disagreeing, taking offence, or providing alternative explanations has no bearing on what is true. Which is true. A. You did not state lack of evidence. You stated that you 'disagreed pretty hard'. Please read your own comment. B. You suggested another possible explanation for Iraq not forming a viable democratic government. I could think of a third argument which I personally think is the more likely explanation. But that doesn't refute the original point. It just suggests another possible explanation. You are suggesting that someone finding an idea offensive, or someone bad believing in an idea, or an alternative idea existing would make that idea wrong. That is not how logic works.
- opnitro 6y ago
  Alright man and piss is stored in the balls

lliamander 6y ago

I agree that both of Stefan's claims are more likely to be false. But as factual claims I think they are better dealt with by arguing against them rather than simply banning. Of course, one can make a factual claim in bad faith in order to stoke controversy. It would be nice to limit this, but it happens so often and I don't see a principled way to prohibit them as a class. On the other hand, I don't see how someone doesn't get banned for saying things like "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." or "#CancelWhitePeople"[1]. If we're going to ban people, those who say things like that against any demographic would be my first choice. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

opnitro 6y ago
Parent simply asked for citations on the ideological leanings of Molyneux. I make no claims on how best to to regulate the massive multinational corporations who control what amounts to the digital commons, as I have no answer :)
- lliamander 6y ago
  Fair enough. One of their posts was flagged, so I wasn't able to read the full context. And while I may have my preferences, I don't know how to best to regulate those digital platforms either.

nailer 6y ago

Now rate limit is over: My post didn't say write that Molyneux's statements were true. My post didn't 'imply' they were true either - they provided possible arguments both for and against. The point is that you disagreeing, taking offence, or providing alternative explanations has no bearing on what is true. Which is true. A. You did not state lack of evidence. You stated that you 'disagreed pretty hard'. Please read your own comment. B. You suggested another possible explanation for Iraq not forming a viable democratic government. I could think of a third argument which I personally think is the more likely explanation. But that doesn't refute the original point. It just suggests another possible explanation. You are suggesting that someone finding an idea offensive, or someone bad believing in an idea, or an alternative idea existing would make that idea wrong. That is not how logic works.

opnitro 6y ago
Alright man and piss is stored in the balls