5 ms·

Eh, I suggested talking about "... the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States ..". But look man. A

Eh, I suggested talking about "... the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States ..". But look man. A part of me wants to back you into a corner, rhetorically. But honestly this conversation really isn't helping anyone. We're both probably rage-posting at this point. I think all this started with someone saying that "racism is objectively bad." To circle back to that, it's my own belief that the killing of George Floyd was a terrible reminder of how white supremacy subtly functions in our society, and, of our responsibility as citizens to work to improve our Union and make a more just society. I think that doing that would ultimately be to everyone's benefit, because I believe that an injustice done to one person is, eventually and ultimately, an injustice done to everyone. We're all from the same (human) family, at the end of the day. My arguing with you probably didn't help either of us. That's my bad.

pandaman 6y ago
For my perspective of this whole argument I will try to make a non-partisan analogy (if such thing is even possible in modern times). Consider two mathematicians, Alice and Bob, solving the same equation f(x) = 0. Alice found the solution to be x = 1 but Bob found x = -1. Maybe Alice has made a mistake, maybe Bob has, maybe both, maybe neither and both 1 and -1 are roots for this equation - we don't know yet. Now, imagine that instead of discussing their findings directly and arguing about them, both made some judgment about their answer and discussed just the result of that judgment. E.g. Alice asserts that the answer is positive and Bob insists that the answer is negative. How well would they fare if one side, say Bob, insisted that the other side claims that -1 is positive and hence is completely nuts and objectively cannot perform as a mathematician due to inability to compare -1 to 0? And no, Bob does not think questioning correctness of his answer by Alice is feasible because people who do not understand that -1 is negative do not deserve a courtesy of an argument. I posit that even if both agree on what numbers are positive and negative there is no discussion and no agreement possible unless both sides allow to discuss the roots of the equation.
- adamsea 6y ago
  I appreciate your intent but tbh I found this confusing. I think perhaps we want to talk about two different things and have been trying to squeeze that into one conversation.
  - pandaman 6y ago
    All I am saying that you are challenging me to discuss judgments over your opinions in assumption that your opinions are facts. While I might agree with the same judgments over actual facts I do not agree with the opinions, which the judgments are based on so there is no possibility of discussion here.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      But isn't it just your own opinion that that which I challenged you to discuss which you have definitively determined to be opinion on which the judgements we are attempting to logically calculate derive themselves from are in fact not actual fact but in fact merely opinions of me myself and therefore ineligible grounds for any determining judgements which might possibly instantiate any form of conversation in which we might converse? ;) By the way you might find this interesting ; ) https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink." LOL OK I should stop my linguistic dick-waving.

pandaman 6y ago

For my perspective of this whole argument I will try to make a non-partisan analogy (if such thing is even possible in modern times). Consider two mathematicians, Alice and Bob, solving the same equation f(x) = 0. Alice found the solution to be x = 1 but Bob found x = -1. Maybe Alice has made a mistake, maybe Bob has, maybe both, maybe neither and both 1 and -1 are roots for this equation - we don't know yet. Now, imagine that instead of discussing their findings directly and arguing about them, both made some judgment about their answer and discussed just the result of that judgment. E.g. Alice asserts that the answer is positive and Bob insists that the answer is negative. How well would they fare if one side, say Bob, insisted that the other side claims that -1 is positive and hence is completely nuts and objectively cannot perform as a mathematician due to inability to compare -1 to 0? And no, Bob does not think questioning correctness of his answer by Alice is feasible because people who do not understand that -1 is negative do not deserve a courtesy of an argument. I posit that even if both agree on what numbers are positive and negative there is no discussion and no agreement possible unless both sides allow to discuss the roots of the equation.

adamsea 6y ago
I appreciate your intent but tbh I found this confusing. I think perhaps we want to talk about two different things and have been trying to squeeze that into one conversation.
- pandaman 6y ago
  All I am saying that you are challenging me to discuss judgments over your opinions in assumption that your opinions are facts. While I might agree with the same judgments over actual facts I do not agree with the opinions, which the judgments are based on so there is no possibility of discussion here.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    But isn't it just your own opinion that that which I challenged you to discuss which you have definitively determined to be opinion on which the judgements we are attempting to logically calculate derive themselves from are in fact not actual fact but in fact merely opinions of me myself and therefore ineligible grounds for any determining judgements which might possibly instantiate any form of conversation in which we might converse? ;) By the way you might find this interesting ; ) https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink." LOL OK I should stop my linguistic dick-waving.