4 ms·

That's a really interesting take. Do you regularly read opinion pieces and take it as proof that the opposite position is correct? For example, if another writ

That's a really interesting take. Do you regularly read opinion pieces and take it as proof that the opposite position is correct? For example, if another writer published an article in the opinion section saying "PornHub has never even accidentally hosted illegal content, especially not child sex exploitation material. These PornHub employees that I've interviewed know this to be true" how would you interpret that?

anotherman554 6y ago
Your framing doesn't make sense. If someone tells me "I'm not a doctor or a scientist but you should eat 4 Apples a day" the correct response is to ignore it, not try to decide what the opposite of 4 Apples a day is and to believe that, whatever the heck the opposite of 4 Apples a day would be. If I read an article where someone says "I'm not a journalist that this isn't fact checked but ABC" it would seem the correct response is to ignore it, not assume what you read is correct or even the opposite is correct.
- newbie789 6y ago
  That's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure how that's a response to my example question. If every opinion piece is by definition fiction (and by your reasoning should never be believed), what would your response be if you read an article positing the opposite case on this topic? Surely PornHub employees could hypothetically be made up or misquoted in the same way the women in this story possibly were. In that case, we'd know that the article was pure fiction, which indicates that the opposite case is true based on this strict ruleset of "opinion pieces are always fiction" and "fiction is always to be treated as categorically false."
  - anotherman554 6y ago
    I didn't say every opinion piece is fiction, I said you should expect it is. That isn't the same thing. I have a counter example to your example. Say the New York Times on Monday runs a opinion column saying trees cause cancer by the Anti-Tree foundation . It is accompanied by a opinion column arguing trees prevent cancer by the Pro- Tree foundation. (I'm trying to pick a silly, non-partisan example rather than a political one) It's clear the NY Times opinion section cannot be trusted because the opinions are mutually exclusive and make claims on facts. I am saying rather than chop down a tree (before it's too late and you get cancer) or plant a tree (to prevent yourself from getting cancer) you should assume both articles are fiction and ignore them.
    - newbie789 6y ago
      That is an interesting counterexample. I apologize for perhaps not being clear. My question is specifically how would you (the person I'm responding to) would react to a hypothetical New York Times opinion piece stating that PornHub in particular and no other hypothetical website, has never had illegal content or child sex exploitation material knowingly or unknowingly. I'm not asking in broad terms, I'm asking about what your response would be to this individual article. I am not asking about trees or apples or cancer. I'm asking about a specific instance of your reasoning in regard to this single subject. Just the one single hypothetical question with a very narrow scope.
      - anotherman554 6y ago
        I don't know how anyone could know that nothing illegal had ever been posted on a web site, proving a negative appears to be impossible. The hypothetical article writer would not appear to be trustworthy who hypothetically wrote that.
        newbie789 6y ago
        So either way, no one should believe anything written in an opinion piece, even if for example an impartial third party like Mastercard is able to verify it to the extent that they found the information actionable enough to suspend business relations. I genuinely do not understand the position of "it could be fiction, and therefore should be treated as fiction even if it's found to be true simply because the section it's in is often populated with bad writers"

anotherman554 6y ago

Your framing doesn't make sense. If someone tells me "I'm not a doctor or a scientist but you should eat 4 Apples a day" the correct response is to ignore it, not try to decide what the opposite of 4 Apples a day is and to believe that, whatever the heck the opposite of 4 Apples a day would be. If I read an article where someone says "I'm not a journalist that this isn't fact checked but ABC" it would seem the correct response is to ignore it, not assume what you read is correct or even the opposite is correct.

newbie789 6y ago
That's an interesting analogy, but I'm not sure how that's a response to my example question. If every opinion piece is by definition fiction (and by your reasoning should never be believed), what would your response be if you read an article positing the opposite case on this topic? Surely PornHub employees could hypothetically be made up or misquoted in the same way the women in this story possibly were. In that case, we'd know that the article was pure fiction, which indicates that the opposite case is true based on this strict ruleset of "opinion pieces are always fiction" and "fiction is always to be treated as categorically false."
- anotherman554 6y ago
  I didn't say every opinion piece is fiction, I said you should expect it is. That isn't the same thing. I have a counter example to your example. Say the New York Times on Monday runs a opinion column saying trees cause cancer by the Anti-Tree foundation . It is accompanied by a opinion column arguing trees prevent cancer by the Pro- Tree foundation. (I'm trying to pick a silly, non-partisan example rather than a political one) It's clear the NY Times opinion section cannot be trusted because the opinions are mutually exclusive and make claims on facts. I am saying rather than chop down a tree (before it's too late and you get cancer) or plant a tree (to prevent yourself from getting cancer) you should assume both articles are fiction and ignore them.
  - newbie789 6y ago
    That is an interesting counterexample. I apologize for perhaps not being clear. My question is specifically how would you (the person I'm responding to) would react to a hypothetical New York Times opinion piece stating that PornHub in particular and no other hypothetical website, has never had illegal content or child sex exploitation material knowingly or unknowingly. I'm not asking in broad terms, I'm asking about what your response would be to this individual article. I am not asking about trees or apples or cancer. I'm asking about a specific instance of your reasoning in regard to this single subject. Just the one single hypothetical question with a very narrow scope.
    - anotherman554 6y ago
      I don't know how anyone could know that nothing illegal had ever been posted on a web site, proving a negative appears to be impossible. The hypothetical article writer would not appear to be trustworthy who hypothetically wrote that.
      - newbie789 6y ago
        So either way, no one should believe anything written in an opinion piece, even if for example an impartial third party like Mastercard is able to verify it to the extent that they found the information actionable enough to suspend business relations. I genuinely do not understand the position of "it could be fiction, and therefore should be treated as fiction even if it's found to be true simply because the section it's in is often populated with bad writers"