3 ms·
You are proposing a dangerous standard. Does every atheist, mormon, polyamorist and satanist now be obligated to disclose their beliefs? He made a data driven a
by haltingproblem 4y ago
You are proposing a dangerous standard. Does every atheist, mormon, polyamorist and satanist now be obligated to disclose their beliefs? He made a data driven argument so lets stay at that rather than a he professes a personal virtuosity that I agree/disagree with kinda of argument.
- andrewclunn 4y agoAd hominems (or attacks on the person or source rather than the argument) are only logical fallacies when applied to people on "my team." Please update your "Rational Skepticism Operating System" to the current year version.
- haltingproblem 4y agoRan the update, locked my brain and I am now fixated on biting coins.
- angry_octet 4y agoHis argument is far from data driven, just the opposite: he interprets data to suit his argument. And indeed, if someone is a prominent Satanist, but describes themselves as a simple kind hearted participant on a UN panel, and decides that the true outcome of the meeting is that people love Satan and need black magic in their lives to PROTECT THE CHILDREN then yes, omitting their selling their soul at the crossroads at midnight is quite a deceitful omission. The omission here is the context free nature of links on HN. We are urged to assess the words of people without context, without knowing that they have a history of the most wild and divisive rhetoric, where the dice are loaded with depleted uranium. No, that does not make sense.
- zaphar 4y agoYou have not yet demonstrated that his interpretation is incorrect. The data won't change so you should be able to do so. This page is full of folks making data driven arguments to that effect and they probably do more to make your point than this does.