2 ms·
Yes, I understood the meaning, and stand by my refinement. However the passage you quote is devoid of argument and full of emotion (and to be fair so is much of
by tomxor 6y ago
Yes, I understood the meaning, and stand by my refinement. However the passage you quote is devoid of argument and full of emotion (and to be fair so is much of the article), it is not the type of information for which I am suggesting a penalty is inappropriate.
When presented with a true argument, information that can be reasoned about or verified, this is where penalization is not appropriate - healthy skepticism ensures you are critical of it, but an attitude of penalization adds a handicap to every argument produced by a committed person regardless of any truth it could hold.
When the argument is almost entirely emotional however I'm inclined to agree - a negative weighting is reasonable.
- sokoloff 6y agoWas there any particular section in that piece that struck you as deserving of strong positive weighting? I found the entire thing fairly breathless emotional screaming about a topic that quite possibly is one deserving of serious attention, but I'll never realize that through the tears.
- tomxor 6y agoNo. I agree the article is not well written, and I think this is a case where the author is not the best placed to communicate the issue in a convincing way, he has literally been personally defending thousands of individuals directly affected by the manufacture of PFOS, so it's understandable how the subject is an extremely emotional one for him. The parent's principle is in fact quite applicable in this case due to the lack of arguments presented along side facts and explanation, but that does not justify over generalizing it to argument from all committed people.
- sokoloff 6y agoPerhaps "passion" is a more precise word for the thing which should be negatively-scored then, rather than "commitment"?