3 ms·

> People commonly make this false equivalence, but as of 2021 it's fair to observe that it's just unequivocally false with respect to the question of respect fo

by zepto 5y ago

> People commonly make this false equivalence, but as of 2021 it's fair to observe that it's just unequivocally false with respect to the question of respect for scientific consensus. If a lot of republicans disregard science (e.g. believe incorrect things about covid) and a few democrats do it (e.g. believing incorrect things about nuclear safety), people take these unequal examples and proceed claim it means both sides are the same, and believe that they are expressing a sophisticated position. I guess you’re arguing with ‘people’ then. You might want to look into some of the other anti-science ideas strongly propagated by democrats. You don’t seem to have a good inventory. It’s not limited to minor false beliefs about nuclear safety. Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example.

glenstein 5y ago
>I guess you’re arguing with ‘people’ then. I'm specifically and directly responding to your question of why we should be in the business of judging the relative merits of different claims, and I elaborated by explaining problems with false balance. Edit, since I can't reply: parent commenter asked "What perspectives do you see coming from the Democrat side that have the same mortality rate as vaccine refusal? "and you replied "why is this question relevant" and I explained why. So I was indeed directly responding to you, despite your continued protestations to the contrary. Insisting that I wasn't being responsive to you is bordering on ridiculous. > Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example. I'm pretty comfortable dismissing this out of hand. Edit: and I'm not missing the point, I understand the role you believe it plays in the logical structure of equating democrats to republicans. I understand that you're invoking the subject of gender and saying it's an example of Democrats being estranged from scientific consensus in a way that's comparable to Republicans being estranged from scientific consensus on covid. And it's at this point in the conversation where I'm no longer attempting to engage with you, and I instead direct my comments to others reading this thread on understanding what false equivalences look like. I was initially focused on failures to accurately compare differently weighted examples. But there's a different category of false equivalence, where people confidently invoke a completely non-existent scientific consensus. The invocation of gender falls into that category.
- zepto 5y ago
  > responding to your question of why we should be in the business of judging the relative merits of different claims, That’s not a question I asked. > and I elaborated by explaining problems with false balance. Which is why this elaboration isn’t relevant. >> Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example. > I'm pretty comfortable dismissing this out of hand. You seem to be missing the point that it is a common anti-science belief promoted by democrats. As far as I can see you are just advocating for partisanship. That’s a common position to take, and you are welcome to it.

by zepto 5y ago

glenstein 5y ago

>I guess you’re arguing with ‘people’ then. I'm specifically and directly responding to your question of why we should be in the business of judging the relative merits of different claims, and I elaborated by explaining problems with false balance. Edit, since I can't reply: parent commenter asked "What perspectives do you see coming from the Democrat side that have the same mortality rate as vaccine refusal? "and you replied "why is this question relevant" and I explained why. So I was indeed directly responding to you, despite your continued protestations to the contrary. Insisting that I wasn't being responsive to you is bordering on ridiculous. > Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example. I'm pretty comfortable dismissing this out of hand. Edit: and I'm not missing the point, I understand the role you believe it plays in the logical structure of equating democrats to republicans. I understand that you're invoking the subject of gender and saying it's an example of Democrats being estranged from scientific consensus in a way that's comparable to Republicans being estranged from scientific consensus on covid. And it's at this point in the conversation where I'm no longer attempting to engage with you, and I instead direct my comments to others reading this thread on understanding what false equivalences look like. I was initially focused on failures to accurately compare differently weighted examples. But there's a different category of false equivalence, where people confidently invoke a completely non-existent scientific consensus. The invocation of gender falls into that category.

zepto 5y ago
> responding to your question of why we should be in the business of judging the relative merits of different claims, That’s not a question I asked. > and I elaborated by explaining problems with false balance. Which is why this elaboration isn’t relevant. >> Consider the belief that there is no such thing as biological sex, for example. > I'm pretty comfortable dismissing this out of hand. You seem to be missing the point that it is a common anti-science belief promoted by democrats. As far as I can see you are just advocating for partisanship. That’s a common position to take, and you are welcome to it.