3 ms·

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.

by 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.
- bena 5y ago
  See, your talking but saying nothing. Most of us understand what "zeal" is and being condescending isn't doing you any favors. "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are. That's what makes your logic bad. You've replaced it with tautologies. Bad is bad. Good is good. Zealots are zealots. And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here. So it's not like it takes a lot. Unless you honestly believe you and him were being upvoted way more. Which you have no evidence for. Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you". Of which the only proof we have of their supposed zealotry is downvoting you and the other guy. So is that what being a climate zealot means to you? It's someone who downvotes you on message boards? You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean.
  - User23 5y ago
    > See, your talking but saying nothing. You might want to use that edit button yourself. Then again the issue might be a general lack of command of the English language rather than a typographic error, as demonstrated by your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to use a dictionary. > "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are. Thank you for the succinct demonstration of ignorance of both logic and the purpose of dictionaries. It sounds like you once "lost" a debate and your interlocutor used the word "tautology" and now you think it's some kind of magic I win button. > And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here. What? Study some basic first order logic please. Also, consider adding the word "germane" to your lexicon. Oh and work on your reading comprehension. > Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you". You do realize that using quotation marks around a fabricated quote is dishonest, don't you? And since I'm feeling charitable, for that matter the word you're looking for is once again "you're." And if you really want to expand your mind look up "gerunds." > You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean. Thank you for the case study of a midwit projecting his own intellectual inadequacies on his interlocutor. Sadly, I don't think further discussion with you is going to satisfy my, or anyone's, intellectual curiosity.

by bena 5y ago

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.

bena 5y ago
See, your talking but saying nothing. Most of us understand what "zeal" is and being condescending isn't doing you any favors. "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are. That's what makes your logic bad. You've replaced it with tautologies. Bad is bad. Good is good. Zealots are zealots. And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here. So it's not like it takes a lot. Unless you honestly believe you and him were being upvoted way more. Which you have no evidence for. Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you". Of which the only proof we have of their supposed zealotry is downvoting you and the other guy. So is that what being a climate zealot means to you? It's someone who downvotes you on message boards? You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean.
- User23 5y ago
  > See, your talking but saying nothing. You might want to use that edit button yourself. Then again the issue might be a general lack of command of the English language rather than a typographic error, as demonstrated by your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to use a dictionary. > "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are. Thank you for the succinct demonstration of ignorance of both logic and the purpose of dictionaries. It sounds like you once "lost" a debate and your interlocutor used the word "tautology" and now you think it's some kind of magic I win button. > And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here. What? Study some basic first order logic please. Also, consider adding the word "germane" to your lexicon. Oh and work on your reading comprehension. > Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you". You do realize that using quotation marks around a fabricated quote is dishonest, don't you? And since I'm feeling charitable, for that matter the word you're looking for is once again "you're." And if you really want to expand your mind look up "gerunds." > You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean. Thank you for the case study of a midwit projecting his own intellectual inadequacies on his interlocutor. Sadly, I don't think further discussion with you is going to satisfy my, or anyone's, intellectual curiosity.