4 ms·
You don't understand how pointing out the names of things isn't the important property of a thing would be relevant in a discussion with someone who is arguing
by P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
You don't understand how pointing out the names of things isn't the important property of a thing would be relevant in a discussion with someone who is arguing it should be called X instead of Y?
That's on you, brother.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mannykannot 4y agoNo, the claims made in the video you linked to do not show that, as you put it, "in this case, 'common sense' and 'blind faith' mean the same thing." Nor does your reply to mcphage.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agocorrect, the video is pointing out the name you call something isn't important. I choose to call it blind faith and the other poster prefers to call it common sense. If a 3rd person wanted to call it guacamole I'd be onboard. The other poster insists on arguing about the name rather than discussing the interesting part, which is underlying idea. They want to do this based upon the whole "science vs religion" thing that was boring even back in the 90's when it was raging. I have no interest in it and so I've stepped out of that conversation. Let someone else take up a stupid, useless, argument.
- mannykannot 4y ago> The video is pointing out the name you call something isn't important. Firstly, this is a misreading of the video. The absurdity of this position can be seen from extending your example through replacing every noun in your comments by "guacamole". Secondly, "blind" is an adjective, and one that you use at every opportunity (except where you are looking up definitions - by the way, isn't looking up definitions an odd preoccupation for someone who doesn't see anything of importance in what you call something?) It is well-known that you cannot outright prove anything about the natural world by induction, but to lump everything that is not proven into the category of specifically blind faith ignores the epistemic value of evidence and just leads to what you call a stupid, useless, argument.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago[flagged]
- dang 4y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly (and indeed mostly) posting flamewar comments. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoI told you earlier you were planning on banning me :)
- dang 4y agoI don't track such things. You kept breaking the site guidelines - this is just standard practice, nothing personal. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agodon't track ... kept breaking ... does not compute.
- dang 4y agoI don't track people's claims about when they expect to be banned or for what. Such claims have no connection to moderation practice. I do track whether accounts have been breaking the site guidelines. That's what moderation is concerned with. I hope that's clearer!
- 4y ago