2 ms·

> You can privately hate the government, but as long as you follow the rules, the damage is contained. Please state in quantitative (percentage) terms what "th

> You can privately hate the government, but as long as you follow the rules, the damage is contained. Please state in quantitative (percentage) terms what "the damage is contained" means at object level reality. Also please state the source(s) of this knowledge (this way it makes it explicit whether what you are describing is your opinion vs facts, as you seem to be presenting it as). Let's check out the language from the link you did include: >> Our results imply that... >> This suggests that... Wow, that's a neat trick. Is science not THE institution that we can turn to for non-misinformative information? I always hear that it is LITERALLY THE BEST at discovering and distributing truth, but then I constantly encounter this sort of thing, and rarely anything else. Does this situation seem strange to you, even in the slightest?

wewtyflakes 3y ago
You expect your opponents to cite sources and provide such nuance at your demand, but you have not reciprocated that patience. It is so easy when you foist expectations on others then wonder why people don't want you engage with you, then claim it is the science that is wrong.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > You expect your opponents to cite sources and provide such nuance at your demand No I don't. This might help you understand your experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind > ...but you have not reciprocated that patience. Apologies. How could I have done that? > It is so easy... So is what you are doing. I'd say your approach is even easier. > when you foist expectations on others I've foisted no expectations, I have only posed some questions or requests for clarifying detail regarding your facts. Please do not misrepresent reality, it is rude, and can be harmful. If you would like others to be concerned about the safety of the collective, you should reciprocate. > then wonder why people don't want you engage with you Do you believe yourself to know why people don't want to engage with me, or that I wonder about such things? How could you possibly acquire such knowledge? > then claim it is the science that is wrong. I made no such claim (though, I did criticize the questionably accurate memetic reputation and marketing of "science", the institution that proclaims in their scriptures and marketing (though not so much in behavior) to welcome all criticism), why are you speaking as if I have? Are you perhaps "trying" (I use quotes, as it may seem like I am implying conscious intent, which I am not) to trick people into believing something that is not true, are you perhaps at least to some degree engaging in rhetoric in order to persuade other people to believe your preferred story?

wewtyflakes 3y ago

You expect your opponents to cite sources and provide such nuance at your demand, but you have not reciprocated that patience. It is so easy when you foist expectations on others then wonder why people don't want you engage with you, then claim it is the science that is wrong.

mistermann 3y ago
> You expect your opponents to cite sources and provide such nuance at your demand No I don't. This might help you understand your experience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind > ...but you have not reciprocated that patience. Apologies. How could I have done that? > It is so easy... So is what you are doing. I'd say your approach is even easier. > when you foist expectations on others I've foisted no expectations, I have only posed some questions or requests for clarifying detail regarding your facts. Please do not misrepresent reality, it is rude, and can be harmful. If you would like others to be concerned about the safety of the collective, you should reciprocate. > then wonder why people don't want you engage with you Do you believe yourself to know why people don't want to engage with me, or that I wonder about such things? How could you possibly acquire such knowledge? > then claim it is the science that is wrong. I made no such claim (though, I did criticize the questionably accurate memetic reputation and marketing of "science", the institution that proclaims in their scriptures and marketing (though not so much in behavior) to welcome all criticism), why are you speaking as if I have? Are you perhaps "trying" (I use quotes, as it may seem like I am implying conscious intent, which I am not) to trick people into believing something that is not true, are you perhaps at least to some degree engaging in rhetoric in order to persuade other people to believe your preferred story?