5 ms·

What's that statement have to do with the discussion at hand? What lead you to introduce it?

mannykannot 6y ago
What lead[sic] me to introduce it was, of course, your statement that "Texas's separate grid dates back decades". The reason why I untroduced it, of course, was that that it explains why the statement of yours that I just quoted is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the post of mine that you were replying to. And do I really need to explain to you how it shows that your comment is irrelevant? I suppose I do, given that we are here. It is just this: since the beginning of Texas' grid (as you say, decades ago - almost a century) there has been plenty of opportunity for Texas to make not just its grid, but its entire energy infrastructure, more resilient. Far from my case being one of recency bias, the reality is that your reply to it suffers from the opposite fallacy - a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  Oh, you are right -- "lead" is a common mis-spelling of "led". https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ The reason you "untroduced [sic]" it, of course, was "that that [sic]" it distracts from your backwards projection of current events, which is why your post is is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the article you were commenting on. And do I really need to explain to you why your points are irrelevant? I suppose that I do, given that we are here. It is just this: the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days. Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    Your complete change of argument here is not much better than the reply you originally posted, as the first thing I wrote in that post is that I agreed with what you wrote about the article (but that it and the article are not the whole story), and the only point where I mentioned Texas was to say that the issues are not confined to Texas. There are lessons to be learned here, for all the affected states, about basing planning on the realities of the actual world. Inadequate preparation in multiple states does not somehow excuse any one of them. You are now attempting to argue against, not what I posted, but an entirely imaginary reply. At least it seems that it has finally dawned on you that the argument you presented in your first reply to me, which, in its entirety, was "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing. It doesn't have anything to do with climate-change denial or the current governor" is utterly irrelevant, both to the energy infrastructure / climate problem in general, and my specific post - though it took ten exchanges in which it was explained to you, multiple times, why it is irrelevant, for you to get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      Your points about climate change and other recent political developments are not relevant to understanding this situation at all. Your comment was an expression of irrelevant emotion, driven by partisan enmity. It detracts from this forum and from public dialogue. It seems like you still don't get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.
      - mannykannot 6y ago
        > Your points about climate change and other recent political developments are not relevant to understanding this situation at all. Well, it is certainly possible that they are irrelevant, but I see that you have given up any pretense of justifying that claim. On the one hand, given how badly your earlier attempts to make that case went, I can see why you would want to avoid another try. On the other, as the person making the claims has demonstrated such a poor record on critical thinking here, why would anyone just accept it? And these are claims, I may add, that you recently doubled-down on once again, as in this statement: >Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias. The thing about parody is that it doesn't work if the premise is false! And what premise was behind this version of your claim of recency bias? Explicitly this: "the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days." For one thing, I had only just before pointed out that the fact that multiple states were unprepared does not excuse any one of them. Secondly, what sort of claim could both be an example of recency bias, and be refuted by the statement of yours that I have just quoted? For example, if someone said "only Texas was affected", it would be refuted by that statement of yours, but it would simply have been a false statement about a recent event. That would not be recency bias! Your other basis for claiming recency bias is "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing", but as Texas was free to respond to more recent warnings about the inadequacy of its energy infrastructure, its failure to do so at that time is, of course, more relevant than the facts you quote about a much earlier time. This is not recency bias!
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Note that this thread has run "below the fold" - see the 'more' link.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    Indeed, note it.

What lead[sic] me to introduce it was, of course, your statement that "Texas's separate grid dates back decades". The reason why I untroduced it, of course, was that that it explains why the statement of yours that I just quoted is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the post of mine that you were replying to. And do I really need to explain to you how it shows that your comment is irrelevant? I suppose I do, given that we are here. It is just this: since the beginning of Texas' grid (as you say, decades ago - almost a century) there has been plenty of opportunity for Texas to make not just its grid, but its entire energy infrastructure, more resilient. Far from my case being one of recency bias, the reality is that your reply to it suffers from the opposite fallacy - a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
solidsnack9000 6y ago
Oh, you are right -- "lead" is a common mis-spelling of "led". https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/ The reason you "untroduced [sic]" it, of course, was "that that [sic]" it distracts from your backwards projection of current events, which is why your post is is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the article you were commenting on. And do I really need to explain to you why your points are irrelevant? I suppose that I do, given that we are here. It is just this: the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days. Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Your complete change of argument here is not much better than the reply you originally posted, as the first thing I wrote in that post is that I agreed with what you wrote about the article (but that it and the article are not the whole story), and the only point where I mentioned Texas was to say that the issues are not confined to Texas. There are lessons to be learned here, for all the affected states, about basing planning on the realities of the actual world. Inadequate preparation in multiple states does not somehow excuse any one of them. You are now attempting to argue against, not what I posted, but an entirely imaginary reply. At least it seems that it has finally dawned on you that the argument you presented in your first reply to me, which, in its entirety, was "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing. It doesn't have anything to do with climate-change denial or the current governor" is utterly irrelevant, both to the energy infrastructure / climate problem in general, and my specific post - though it took ten exchanges in which it was explained to you, multiple times, why it is irrelevant, for you to get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    Your points about climate change and other recent political developments are not relevant to understanding this situation at all. Your comment was an expression of irrelevant emotion, driven by partisan enmity. It detracts from this forum and from public dialogue. It seems like you still don't get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.
    - mannykannot 6y ago
      > Your points about climate change and other recent political developments are not relevant to understanding this situation at all. Well, it is certainly possible that they are irrelevant, but I see that you have given up any pretense of justifying that claim. On the one hand, given how badly your earlier attempts to make that case went, I can see why you would want to avoid another try. On the other, as the person making the claims has demonstrated such a poor record on critical thinking here, why would anyone just accept it? And these are claims, I may add, that you recently doubled-down on once again, as in this statement: >Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias. The thing about parody is that it doesn't work if the premise is false! And what premise was behind this version of your claim of recency bias? Explicitly this: "the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days." For one thing, I had only just before pointed out that the fact that multiple states were unprepared does not excuse any one of them. Secondly, what sort of claim could both be an example of recency bias, and be refuted by the statement of yours that I have just quoted? For example, if someone said "only Texas was affected", it would be refuted by that statement of yours, but it would simply have been a false statement about a recent event. That would not be recency bias! Your other basis for claiming recency bias is "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing", but as Texas was free to respond to more recent warnings about the inadequacy of its energy infrastructure, its failure to do so at that time is, of course, more relevant than the facts you quote about a much earlier time. This is not recency bias!
mannykannot 6y ago
Note that this thread has run "below the fold" - see the 'more' link.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  Indeed, note it.