3 ms·

He didn't punch a toddler in the face. He was wrong about something in some tweets that probably reached an audience smaller than a mediocre college football ga

He didn't punch a toddler in the face. He was wrong about something in some tweets that probably reached an audience smaller than a mediocre college football game, I don't see how that obligates him to apologize or otherwise prostrate himself.

nawgz 5y ago
> He didn't punch a toddler in the face. If your defense of someone has to start with such a hilarious strawman, it might be an indicator you're defending something not worth your time.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  Says the group arguing about someone being wrong on the internet about nothing of importance. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
  - nawgz 5y ago
    This discussion itself is of nothing important. However, that doesn't preclude it from being a place where moral relativity exists and can be debated. I am not sure I understand your assumption that the importance of a claim or discussion is related to whether it can be morally judged.
    - tomnipotent 5y ago
      Doesn't mean there's value to it. This is a perfect example of manufactured moral outrage, justified post-hoc. The onus is on the outrage to justify it, not on the accused to defend against it. In this context, someone was expecting another person to exhibit a particular response to earn redemption based on an absolutely benign incident. At a certain point, the yelling just becomes tedious and unproductive regardless of the philosophical value of debate and discussion. "I'm outraged because someone was wrong and no one was hurt and no harm was done" is just hubris.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - nawgz 5y ago
        > Doesn't mean there's value to it. Well, to bring the concept of "value" into it only drives this further philosophical; I personally consider all debates of moral relativity to hold some inherent value, due to the topic, but I admit some are vacuous nonetheless. > This is a perfect example of manufactured moral outrage, justified post-hoc. I don't really understand what is "manufactured" about this. The individual went and published a hefty claim, in the form of a white paper no less, that Japan was about to see a massive outbreak of COVID[0]; they believed so intently in themselves that they were willing to put this content out there and stake some lofty claims on the "work" of the white paper. Of course those who find the work sloppy and indeed find the conclusions outlined in the paper to have not occurred at all are going to decry the author. It is their inherent right. I will leave it to you to slog through the details of the thing, I personally only joined to wax philosophical about the nature of debate on the internet. > The onus is on the outrage to justify it, not on the accused to defend against it. This language is so silly. The numbers forecasted in the paper didn't occur, seems pretty well justified. > "I'm outraged because someone was wrong and no one was hurt and no harm was done" is just hubris. Again, your language is very telling of the media you consume, but "no harm was done" is both difficult to quantify and hard to imagine as true if you consider actions of negative moral relativity to be harmful, which is not an unreasonable stance to take against breathlessly whispered, widely published failed psuedoscience. [0]: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2020/04/21/japan-coronavirus/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2020/04/21/japan-coronavirus/
        tomnipotent 5y ago
        > what is "manufactured" about this There is no moral position of substance that you can argue from, where Patrick owes anyone an apology. Dead stop. He's been more than humble enough to publish an admission of error, one for which the original OP was too lazy to look for prior to impugning Patrick for it. He's not Fauci. He created a bingo card creator and shared the experience and his personal perspective with this community. This does not oblige him to meet everyone's unrealistic expectations of how he should conduct himself. It says far more about the people caught up in the orbit of his mistake, than he does about him. > Again, your language is very telling of the media you consume How do you imagine throwing an ad-hominem was going to help make for a more productive debate?

nawgz 5y ago

> He didn't punch a toddler in the face. If your defense of someone has to start with such a hilarious strawman, it might be an indicator you're defending something not worth your time.

tomnipotent 5y ago
Says the group arguing about someone being wrong on the internet about nothing of importance. https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/
- nawgz 5y ago
  This discussion itself is of nothing important. However, that doesn't preclude it from being a place where moral relativity exists and can be debated. I am not sure I understand your assumption that the importance of a claim or discussion is related to whether it can be morally judged.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    Doesn't mean there's value to it. This is a perfect example of manufactured moral outrage, justified post-hoc. The onus is on the outrage to justify it, not on the accused to defend against it. In this context, someone was expecting another person to exhibit a particular response to earn redemption based on an absolutely benign incident. At a certain point, the yelling just becomes tedious and unproductive regardless of the philosophical value of debate and discussion. "I'm outraged because someone was wrong and no one was hurt and no harm was done" is just hubris.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nawgz 5y ago
      > Doesn't mean there's value to it. Well, to bring the concept of "value" into it only drives this further philosophical; I personally consider all debates of moral relativity to hold some inherent value, due to the topic, but I admit some are vacuous nonetheless. > This is a perfect example of manufactured moral outrage, justified post-hoc. I don't really understand what is "manufactured" about this. The individual went and published a hefty claim, in the form of a white paper no less, that Japan was about to see a massive outbreak of COVID[0]; they believed so intently in themselves that they were willing to put this content out there and stake some lofty claims on the "work" of the white paper. Of course those who find the work sloppy and indeed find the conclusions outlined in the paper to have not occurred at all are going to decry the author. It is their inherent right. I will leave it to you to slog through the details of the thing, I personally only joined to wax philosophical about the nature of debate on the internet. > The onus is on the outrage to justify it, not on the accused to defend against it. This language is so silly. The numbers forecasted in the paper didn't occur, seems pretty well justified. > "I'm outraged because someone was wrong and no one was hurt and no harm was done" is just hubris. Again, your language is very telling of the media you consume, but "no harm was done" is both difficult to quantify and hard to imagine as true if you consider actions of negative moral relativity to be harmful, which is not an unreasonable stance to take against breathlessly whispered, widely published failed psuedoscience. [0]: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2020/04/21/japan-coronavirus/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2020/04/21/japan-coronavirus/
      - tomnipotent 5y ago
        > what is "manufactured" about this There is no moral position of substance that you can argue from, where Patrick owes anyone an apology. Dead stop. He's been more than humble enough to publish an admission of error, one for which the original OP was too lazy to look for prior to impugning Patrick for it. He's not Fauci. He created a bingo card creator and shared the experience and his personal perspective with this community. This does not oblige him to meet everyone's unrealistic expectations of how he should conduct himself. It says far more about the people caught up in the orbit of his mistake, than he does about him. > Again, your language is very telling of the media you consume How do you imagine throwing an ad-hominem was going to help make for a more productive debate?