3 ms·

"A motivation would be to increase the likelihood of one's perceptions of what's going on aligning with what is actually going on" -- this only works if you ass

"A motivation would be to increase the likelihood of one's perceptions of what's going on aligning with what is actually going on" -- this only works if you assume that my perception is not already aligned with what is actually going on. Your conclusion is that I should consider whether I am being childish in claiming that it is childish for someone to support Trump. When I asked you why you would think this you said that it is because it would increase the likelihood of my perception being aligned with reality. So you are starting with the assumption that my perception is not aligned with reality and then concluding that I should reconsider it. So your premise is that I am wrong and therefore you conclude that I should reconsider. That is what it means to beg the question.

mistermann 4y ago
> "A motivation would be to increase the likelihood of one's perceptions of what's going on aligning with what is actually going on" -- this only works if you assume that my perception is not already aligned with what is actually going on. Well, unless you have a direct connection of some sort with God / The Oracle / The Universe, I suspect that you are in the same boat as the rest of us: an instance of consciousness that runs on the brain, whose access to "reality" is via your senses, and subject to some substantial subset of the various imperfections that science/psychology have documented over the years. > Your conclusion is that I should consider whether I am being childish in claiming that it is childish for someone to support Trump. More precisely, I said: "I think it's worth considering...." > When I asked you why you would think this you said that it is because it would increase the likelihood of my perception being aligned with reality. More precisely, I said: "A motivation would be to increase the likelihood....". I also noted: "which is what Trump supporters are often criticized for", because of the potentially delicious irony (in that you were criticizing the cognitive capabilities of Trump supporters, yet when someone dares to challenge you, you deny any flaw, confidently, and respond with objectively inaccurate counter-accusations). I also noted: "Whether this qualifies for being worth it is largely (but not necessarily entirely) a subjective matter." From my perspective, you are describing what has happened as if I am making confident statements of fact, whereas the actual text I have written (shared/documented reality) demonstrates otherwise....which I think lends credence to the possibility that your take on reality is not actually perfect. > So you are starting with the assumption that my perception is not aligned with reality and then concluding that I should reconsider it. So your premise is that I am wrong and therefore you conclude that I should reconsider. That is what it means to beg the question. But only if one's premises are correct! (Yours are not.) Further, marvel at how many unforced (I speculate) errors you've made - for extra effect: consider what percentage of the things you've said contain error.
- jononomo 4y ago
  This is just to note that I cannot slow my brain down enough to respond to your comment.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    I wonder how true that statement is. I think it is interesting how dynamic people's interest is in a topic, and how this interest level can be deliberately altered by their counterpart in a conversation by speaking in very specific forms. I also believe this phenomenon is relevant to the broader discussions in this thread.

mistermann 4y ago

> "A motivation would be to increase the likelihood of one's perceptions of what's going on aligning with what is actually going on" -- this only works if you assume that my perception is not already aligned with what is actually going on. Well, unless you have a direct connection of some sort with God / The Oracle / The Universe, I suspect that you are in the same boat as the rest of us: an instance of consciousness that runs on the brain, whose access to "reality" is via your senses, and subject to some substantial subset of the various imperfections that science/psychology have documented over the years. > Your conclusion is that I should consider whether I am being childish in claiming that it is childish for someone to support Trump. More precisely, I said: "I think it's worth considering...." > When I asked you why you would think this you said that it is because it would increase the likelihood of my perception being aligned with reality. More precisely, I said: "A motivation would be to increase the likelihood....". I also noted: "which is what Trump supporters are often criticized for", because of the potentially delicious irony (in that you were criticizing the cognitive capabilities of Trump supporters, yet when someone dares to challenge you, you deny any flaw, confidently, and respond with objectively inaccurate counter-accusations). I also noted: "Whether this qualifies for being worth it is largely (but not necessarily entirely) a subjective matter." From my perspective, you are describing what has happened as if I am making confident statements of fact, whereas the actual text I have written (shared/documented reality) demonstrates otherwise....which I think lends credence to the possibility that your take on reality is not actually perfect. > So you are starting with the assumption that my perception is not aligned with reality and then concluding that I should reconsider it. So your premise is that I am wrong and therefore you conclude that I should reconsider. That is what it means to beg the question. But only if one's premises are correct! (Yours are not.) Further, marvel at how many unforced (I speculate) errors you've made - for extra effect: consider what percentage of the things you've said contain error.

jononomo 4y ago
This is just to note that I cannot slow my brain down enough to respond to your comment.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I wonder how true that statement is. I think it is interesting how dynamic people's interest is in a topic, and how this interest level can be deliberately altered by their counterpart in a conversation by speaking in very specific forms. I also believe this phenomenon is relevant to the broader discussions in this thread.