4 ms·

> I'm not sure why you are being down-voted for voicing your position. The climate zealots here are extremely aggressive with the downvoting. And yes the descr

by User23 5y ago

> I'm not sure why you are being down-voted for voicing your position. The climate zealots here are extremely aggressive with the downvoting. And yes the description zealot is fair. Denier is their word for heretic. Another sign of zealotry is the inability to recognize nuance. For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true, but their brains will shut down and immediately label me as a “denier” even though I’m entirely agnostic on the subject. I really don’t care. I have better things to spend my intellectual energy on than learning enough to evaluate whatever evidence there is for a problem I can’t solve. But there’s no greater offense to a zealot than saying you consider his particular obsession irrelevant. Yet another sign of zealotry is an extreme desire for others to publicly affirm one’s beliefs. This should help you understand why gp is poorly received. Edit: As for why I bothered to post about zealots, it’s because I believe zealotry of all sorts, including climate zealotry, is far more likely to cause mass harm than whatever issue the zealots are obsessed with. For example climate zealots are actually seriously planning to blot out the sun. What could possibly go wrong?

rootusrootus 5y ago
> For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true That's a tautology. Perhaps you could explain who exactly is a 'climate zealot', and why, without just painting everyone who doesn't agree with you as one.
- User23 5y ago
  First, “observably” means I was making an empirical claim. The basis may be tautological which is to say logically sound, but the key point is that I and others have observed zealotry. Second, persons who are climate zealots are the ones who act like zealots about climate, rather than pornography or any other number of hobbyhorses that zealots obsess over. I think it’s fair to assume most everyone reading this is educated and experienced enough to know what a zealot is. It’s not up to me who is or isn’t a climate zealot, the class is duck typed. So much for that. Third, I’m not painting people who disagree with me as anything, because there aren’t any people who disagree with me. How exactly does one disagree with someone who has no belief to disagree with? Edit: Thank you zealots for proving my point.
  - bena 5y ago
    His point is that saying "zealots are zealots" doesn't say anything. Or the people who are zealots are those acting like zealots. Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions. He knows what he'd define a zealot as, but he wants you to define what it means to you. But you want to dodge the question by saying "it's obvious". You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. But. You could be wrong. I mean, your logic is bad, which is a good reason to downvote you in general. They're not disagreeing with your self-professed non-position on climate change. They're disagreeing with your refusal to engage with others in good faith.
    - User23 5y ago
      > Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions All three of those are entirely orthogonal to whether or not one is a zealot. For example someone could sabotage a petroleum refinery because they’re following military orders without any particular obsession with petroleum. And someone could be a zealot about recycling by being obsessed with it and calling people who think recycling is a waste because China isn’t taking it anymore “wasters” or some other pejorative label and insisting everyone else take recycling as seriously as they do. Perhaps you’ll find looking up “zeal” in your favorite dictionary helpful for understanding what zealotry us. > I mean, your logic is bad I’m fairly confident in “A is A” having pragmatic value and uninterested in a model that doesn’t accept that axiom. The correctness of my logic isn’t harmed by assuming my interlocutors can recognize zealotry. > You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. Now here is an actual logical error: confusing the implication and the consequence or confusing either or both with the equivalence. Observing that zealots will downvote does not mean that all those who downvote are zealots. Edit: One reliable indicator of a zealot downvote is that other completely unrelated comments from the objectionable author that are still eligible for downvotes will get downvoted at the same time, which I’ve observed in this instance.

by User23 5y ago

rootusrootus 5y ago

> For example my pointing out that climate zealots act like zealots is observably true That's a tautology. Perhaps you could explain who exactly is a 'climate zealot', and why, without just painting everyone who doesn't agree with you as one.

User23 5y ago
First, “observably” means I was making an empirical claim. The basis may be tautological which is to say logically sound, but the key point is that I and others have observed zealotry. Second, persons who are climate zealots are the ones who act like zealots about climate, rather than pornography or any other number of hobbyhorses that zealots obsess over. I think it’s fair to assume most everyone reading this is educated and experienced enough to know what a zealot is. It’s not up to me who is or isn’t a climate zealot, the class is duck typed. So much for that. Third, I’m not painting people who disagree with me as anything, because there aren’t any people who disagree with me. How exactly does one disagree with someone who has no belief to disagree with? Edit: Thank you zealots for proving my point.
- bena 5y ago
  His point is that saying "zealots are zealots" doesn't say anything. Or the people who are zealots are those acting like zealots. Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions. He knows what he'd define a zealot as, but he wants you to define what it means to you. But you want to dodge the question by saying "it's obvious". You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. But. You could be wrong. I mean, your logic is bad, which is a good reason to downvote you in general. They're not disagreeing with your self-professed non-position on climate change. They're disagreeing with your refusal to engage with others in good faith.
  - User23 5y ago
    > Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions All three of those are entirely orthogonal to whether or not one is a zealot. For example someone could sabotage a petroleum refinery because they’re following military orders without any particular obsession with petroleum. And someone could be a zealot about recycling by being obsessed with it and calling people who think recycling is a waste because China isn’t taking it anymore “wasters” or some other pejorative label and insisting everyone else take recycling as seriously as they do. Perhaps you’ll find looking up “zeal” in your favorite dictionary helpful for understanding what zealotry us. > I mean, your logic is bad I’m fairly confident in “A is A” having pragmatic value and uninterested in a model that doesn’t accept that axiom. The correctness of my logic isn’t harmed by assuming my interlocutors can recognize zealotry. > You've also defined anyone downvoting him or you as zealots. Now here is an actual logical error: confusing the implication and the consequence or confusing either or both with the equivalence. Observing that zealots will downvote does not mean that all those who downvote are zealots. Edit: One reliable indicator of a zealot downvote is that other completely unrelated comments from the objectionable author that are still eligible for downvotes will get downvoted at the same time, which I’ve observed in this instance.