3 ms·

>Who are Global Justice Now? >We are a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more

>Who are Global Justice Now? >We are a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south Seems like you might want to vet your sources, this is a highly, highly polemic group: you can especially tell because moderately polemic groups will at least try to obfuscate their bias.

phartenfeller 3y ago
Why not debate what they say? Whoever brings up an argument doesn't matter if they have a point, in my opinion. Otherwise it would be ad hominem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem .
- boringuser2 3y ago
  You're skirting on the fact that what I've stated isn't an ad hominem because I'm not directly refuting any specific argument. I'm applying a heuristic.
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > Why not debate what they say? Because it's not worth debating to us and the vast majority of us aren't policymakers when it comes to matter of global-economics. ...I suspect the link was to posted here to HN on the off-chance a CTO or tech-savvy CEO of an influential SV company sees it and decides to bring it up at Davos this week - just like how other NGOs take-out ads in The Economist around this time of year. So it's pretty flattering to the HN crowd to imagine that we all virtually rub-shoulders with the world's elite.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jdewerd 3y ago
Ah, yes, all the economic think tanks funded by people and organizations of a certain economic background promoting policy that coincidentally serves the purposes of those same parties are more trustworthy because they try to obfuscate their bias. What? This argument is certifiably nuts! The biggest players can launder their size into the appearance of impartial organic consensus, yes, but observing this in action isn't a reason to trust them!
- boringuser2 3y ago
  You've erected and demolished a strawman, this is an actual logical fallacy, unlike the attempt below.
  - jdewerd 3y ago
    Applying formal reasoning to defend a self-admitted heuristic is a special kind of silly. Besides, your heuristic sucks. Just because it formally sucks due to being an ad-hom doesn't mean it can't informally suck on other dimensions, like mindless deference to authority. Logic has nothing to say about that, but when considering bias it's something you should probably try harder to keep in mind.

phartenfeller 3y ago

Why not debate what they say? Whoever brings up an argument doesn't matter if they have a point, in my opinion. Otherwise it would be ad hominem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem .

boringuser2 3y ago
You're skirting on the fact that what I've stated isn't an ad hominem because I'm not directly refuting any specific argument. I'm applying a heuristic.
DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
> Why not debate what they say? Because it's not worth debating to us and the vast majority of us aren't policymakers when it comes to matter of global-economics. ...I suspect the link was to posted here to HN on the off-chance a CTO or tech-savvy CEO of an influential SV company sees it and decides to bring it up at Davos this week - just like how other NGOs take-out ads in The Economist around this time of year. So it's pretty flattering to the HN crowd to imagine that we all virtually rub-shoulders with the world's elite.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jdewerd 3y ago

Ah, yes, all the economic think tanks funded by people and organizations of a certain economic background promoting policy that coincidentally serves the purposes of those same parties are more trustworthy because they try to obfuscate their bias. What? This argument is certifiably nuts! The biggest players can launder their size into the appearance of impartial organic consensus, yes, but observing this in action isn't a reason to trust them!

boringuser2 3y ago
You've erected and demolished a strawman, this is an actual logical fallacy, unlike the attempt below.
- jdewerd 3y ago
  Applying formal reasoning to defend a self-admitted heuristic is a special kind of silly. Besides, your heuristic sucks. Just because it formally sucks due to being an ad-hom doesn't mean it can't informally suck on other dimensions, like mindless deference to authority. Logic has nothing to say about that, but when considering bias it's something you should probably try harder to keep in mind.