4 ms·

> There's a place for healthy skepticism, but not denial. I’m not saying I’m necessarily denying your premise, at least not wholesale, but what is the point of

> There's a place for healthy skepticism, but not denial. I’m not saying I’m necessarily denying your premise, at least not wholesale, but what is the point of skepticism if it doesn’t include the possibility of rejecting a premise? It’s like saying “I’ll allow you to ask questions but ultimately you have to come my conclusion” We can be passionate and rational at the same time.

titzer 5y ago
We're in the middle of a discussion about plastic waste, and some people add to the discussion by posting their personal experiences as counter to people who have clearly no personal experiences, and some other people push back which what sounds like rational skepticism but is really just shifting the burden of proof to an absurd level, like they are going to dedicate years of their life to visit a representative sample of beaches to even post a comment. There's a point where skepticism becomes more than just irritating, but entirely subtractive from the discussion. It's hard to know what your intentions are from that pushback, but it was borderline IMHO, and it certainly muddies the waters. I'll be completely open about my intentions. I want people to stop fucking up my river and, damn it, it's not China or India's fault. OP is a complete distraction from a real problem that exists where I live. I'd like to dump a few bags of garbage I picked up from the river on their lawn and see what they think about some vague plan to clean up the Ganges.
- acituan 5y ago
  I'll try to be as clear as I can. There were several weaknesses with your argument that I was hoping you to strengthen; - you were making yourself prone to availability bias; I've been to beaches recently and none of those have the problems you mention. That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, it means we don't get to make sweeping generalization from the partial reality we contact. Your original rebuttal to the OP was "have you ever been to a beach lately" - appeal to emotions; I'm personally sorry to hear your local beach is in heartbreaking condition, but that alone does not amplify the strength of your claim that "beaches are covered with litter". In fact it makes it more easy to refute for anyone who doesn't readily sympathize with your story, and that would harm what I assume to be your ultimate goal which is a reduced pollution. - overgeneralization: you're perfectly entitled to talk about your personal experience, but when you assert that as a method of establishing the global truth, that is the motion that brings the burden of proof on you, not me pointing that out. Maybe keep the strength of your assertion in proportion to the data you personally have. It might look like waters are muddied for you, but I think you might be the only one in confusion probably because you seem to be very emotional about this topic. Which is OK, like I said being passionate is OK, but the weaknesses in your argumentation will only hurt your cause.
  - titzer 5y ago
    This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that is subtractive. A personal attack couched as some kind of psychological diagnosis. "You're being emotional." Please deal with the substance of arguments, and don't make the person the subject of discussion. That's textbook distraction and is a logical fallacy. I'll be getting back to my representative sampling of the world's beaches. And you made a mistake in that I didn't claim that "all beaches are littered". Someone else posted that. I wrote, "I've been to beaches on four continents and every. single. one." That's about my experiences. > appeal to emotions; I'm personally sorry to hear your local beach is in heartbreaking condition You also misattributed this as an appeal to emotions. I have a local problem. People are arguing about problems in other countries as excuse to block action here. Stop doing that. > overgeneralization: Again, I didn't. I pointed out the scale of the problem is at least as big as my personal experience. It is, in fact, larger than that. This side turn is subtractive from the discussion and I hope you would consider not replying again with how wrong I am and how my arguments are so bad.
    - acituan 5y ago
      > This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that is subtractive. It might feel like it is subtracting from your sense of being right, which I am not saying you’re definitely not, but I think some readers might find it valuable in terms of reaching to more well-thought-out conclusions. > A personal attack couched as some kind of psychological diagnosis. "You're being emotional." I'm sorry you felt attacked, that wasn't my intention. Having emotions is a human condition, not a psychological diagnosis, and I thought I made it clear that I didn't find anything demeaning about it. You just can't base your arguments mainly on it though. > Please deal with the substance of arguments, and don't make the person the subject of discussion It so happens you made your personal experience and your feeling about it the grounding of your argument; making rebuttals on that basis is not making it personal, it is actually an argument against making things personal. And at no point I invalidated your experience or emotions or your personhood. > You also misattributed this as an appeal to emotions. I have a local problem. People are arguing about problems in other countries as excuse to block action here. Stop doing that. Maybe the readers were mislead when you talked about 4 continents, especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently". It wasn't clear, at least to me, you were interested in talking about the local phenomena. But thanks for clarifying that. Let's get one thing clear though, since we can't read people's minds, it is equally undesirable ascribing intentions of blocking action and other negative predictions salient to you in your mind, to others. So I'll kindly ask you to refrain from that first. > I hope you would consider not replying again with how wrong I am and how my arguments are so bad. I've considered and still I think it would be to the benefit of the community to remove the confusion between the local-global, personal-general, emotional-rational. If you are upset about receiving responses, you always have the option of removing yourself from the discussion first. Asking others to stop talking is a bit censor-y.

titzer 5y ago

We're in the middle of a discussion about plastic waste, and some people add to the discussion by posting their personal experiences as counter to people who have clearly no personal experiences, and some other people push back which what sounds like rational skepticism but is really just shifting the burden of proof to an absurd level, like they are going to dedicate years of their life to visit a representative sample of beaches to even post a comment. There's a point where skepticism becomes more than just irritating, but entirely subtractive from the discussion. It's hard to know what your intentions are from that pushback, but it was borderline IMHO, and it certainly muddies the waters. I'll be completely open about my intentions. I want people to stop fucking up my river and, damn it, it's not China or India's fault. OP is a complete distraction from a real problem that exists where I live. I'd like to dump a few bags of garbage I picked up from the river on their lawn and see what they think about some vague plan to clean up the Ganges.

acituan 5y ago
I'll try to be as clear as I can. There were several weaknesses with your argument that I was hoping you to strengthen; - you were making yourself prone to availability bias; I've been to beaches recently and none of those have the problems you mention. That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist, it means we don't get to make sweeping generalization from the partial reality we contact. Your original rebuttal to the OP was "have you ever been to a beach lately" - appeal to emotions; I'm personally sorry to hear your local beach is in heartbreaking condition, but that alone does not amplify the strength of your claim that "beaches are covered with litter". In fact it makes it more easy to refute for anyone who doesn't readily sympathize with your story, and that would harm what I assume to be your ultimate goal which is a reduced pollution. - overgeneralization: you're perfectly entitled to talk about your personal experience, but when you assert that as a method of establishing the global truth, that is the motion that brings the burden of proof on you, not me pointing that out. Maybe keep the strength of your assertion in proportion to the data you personally have. It might look like waters are muddied for you, but I think you might be the only one in confusion probably because you seem to be very emotional about this topic. Which is OK, like I said being passionate is OK, but the weaknesses in your argumentation will only hurt your cause.
- titzer 5y ago
  This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that is subtractive. A personal attack couched as some kind of psychological diagnosis. "You're being emotional." Please deal with the substance of arguments, and don't make the person the subject of discussion. That's textbook distraction and is a logical fallacy. I'll be getting back to my representative sampling of the world's beaches. And you made a mistake in that I didn't claim that "all beaches are littered". Someone else posted that. I wrote, "I've been to beaches on four continents and every. single. one." That's about my experiences. > appeal to emotions; I'm personally sorry to hear your local beach is in heartbreaking condition You also misattributed this as an appeal to emotions. I have a local problem. People are arguing about problems in other countries as excuse to block action here. Stop doing that. > overgeneralization: Again, I didn't. I pointed out the scale of the problem is at least as big as my personal experience. It is, in fact, larger than that. This side turn is subtractive from the discussion and I hope you would consider not replying again with how wrong I am and how my arguments are so bad.
  - acituan 5y ago
    > This exactly the kind of snooty academic dialogue that is subtractive. It might feel like it is subtracting from your sense of being right, which I am not saying you’re definitely not, but I think some readers might find it valuable in terms of reaching to more well-thought-out conclusions. > A personal attack couched as some kind of psychological diagnosis. "You're being emotional." I'm sorry you felt attacked, that wasn't my intention. Having emotions is a human condition, not a psychological diagnosis, and I thought I made it clear that I didn't find anything demeaning about it. You just can't base your arguments mainly on it though. > Please deal with the substance of arguments, and don't make the person the subject of discussion It so happens you made your personal experience and your feeling about it the grounding of your argument; making rebuttals on that basis is not making it personal, it is actually an argument against making things personal. And at no point I invalidated your experience or emotions or your personhood. > You also misattributed this as an appeal to emotions. I have a local problem. People are arguing about problems in other countries as excuse to block action here. Stop doing that. Maybe the readers were mislead when you talked about 4 continents, especially after an opener of "have you been to any beaches recently". It wasn't clear, at least to me, you were interested in talking about the local phenomena. But thanks for clarifying that. Let's get one thing clear though, since we can't read people's minds, it is equally undesirable ascribing intentions of blocking action and other negative predictions salient to you in your mind, to others. So I'll kindly ask you to refrain from that first. > I hope you would consider not replying again with how wrong I am and how my arguments are so bad. I've considered and still I think it would be to the benefit of the community to remove the confusion between the local-global, personal-general, emotional-rational. If you are upset about receiving responses, you always have the option of removing yourself from the discussion first. Asking others to stop talking is a bit censor-y.