4 ms·

> It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and

> It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency. I'm happy with the basis of my opinions. I'm happy to express them and argue my side. I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. I wouldn't say this, for example: > middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it. > Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral - acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right. Each person is given their own mental faculties to with as they like. We each have the opportunity to consider right and wrong, true and false in whatever way we like. One can have personally verified opinions or one can accept consensus opinion, or anything in between. Each of us gets to choose.

oblio 2y ago
> acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right. Absolute freedom doesn't exist either. A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such). > That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral. At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less. I'm at a point of life where: a) I know I don't know everything b) I know that I'm frequently wrong However I also know that I read 10-100x more than the average person, I interact with people that do the same, I challenge my assumptions periodically (which average people don't do) and whenever possible, I verify things to make sure I'm aligned with reality (which average people do). Most people just don't bother/give up/were never educated to nurture their intellectual side. It's fair to admit this, even though we might be idealists that hope that everyone will wisen up and do this. Some people will always remain dumb (due to lack of privilege or otherwise... at some point it doesn't matter, the end result is the same). So, knowing the little I do know and the lot that I don't know, I'm fairly confident that the best model for our current reality regarding climate is accepting that humans are changing it, probably for the worse. And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and... So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors. > I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral Guess what, those Big Oil mega corps are forcing their reality on non-believer me every day. I want fewer of their cars, I want more greenery, I want more bikes, I want more ebikes, I want more and better side walks, I want my kids to breathe a clean air. > I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. Then nothing will get done. Even the freest of direct democracies never has 100% consensus. Some people buckle up and get taken along for the ride, gritting their teeth.
- verisimi 2y ago
  > A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. It is based in violent use of force. I'm glad to hear that this suits you, I hope your opinions and convictions remain in line with the government's. > Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such) Hmm. This is not something you know; it might be something you believe. Unless you have personal experience of warlords. When you say 'government' I think you are talking about the overt state apparatus - eg politicians, government buildings, courts, police, etc. But I think of a 'governance system', which includes schooling and media and both political parties. We are presented with an illusion of debate, reasoning, etc whilst being guided towards preordained goals. > At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less. Yes, you cannot verify everything. But do you actually verify anything? Eg, what climate change bits have you personally verified? I have tried btw, but the beaches I knew decades ago are still at the same height, plastic bags do not last for 100s of years - ie my personal verification leads me to the opposite conclusions of those that are commonly made. > And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and... You say we... Which group is this that you speak for? Which group has the real handle on truth that it can force everyone else to abide by it? Does truth really need to be forced on others - I would have hoped it it was true, it would demonstrable. If it is not demonstrable, perhaps it is not truth, despite all the books, shows on TV, etc. > So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors. So say, lots of group who are convinced of their position, environmental folk, religious, political, etc. They can't all be right though? It is it that the mightiest are the rightest? For me, all that ideology is a recipe for confrontation. We all have to live here .. can we not do so with conversation, cooperating on those things we care about, and yet not forcing others to go against their conscience? I try not to force others, it seems a viable way to go. And it's not like I know the truth and have never been wrong. I would hate to force something on another, only to realise my force was in error later on, even if I was well meaning at the time. There's really no need to force others to act as you think is right, even if you have read a lot of books. > Then nothing will get done. It's really pretty good already. I don't need to force my "improvements" on the world.

oblio 2y ago

> acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right. Absolute freedom doesn't exist either. A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such). > That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral. At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less. I'm at a point of life where: a) I know I don't know everything b) I know that I'm frequently wrong However I also know that I read 10-100x more than the average person, I interact with people that do the same, I challenge my assumptions periodically (which average people don't do) and whenever possible, I verify things to make sure I'm aligned with reality (which average people do). Most people just don't bother/give up/were never educated to nurture their intellectual side. It's fair to admit this, even though we might be idealists that hope that everyone will wisen up and do this. Some people will always remain dumb (due to lack of privilege or otherwise... at some point it doesn't matter, the end result is the same). So, knowing the little I do know and the lot that I don't know, I'm fairly confident that the best model for our current reality regarding climate is accepting that humans are changing it, probably for the worse. And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and... So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors. > I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral Guess what, those Big Oil mega corps are forcing their reality on non-believer me every day. I want fewer of their cars, I want more greenery, I want more bikes, I want more ebikes, I want more and better side walks, I want my kids to breathe a clean air. > I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. Then nothing will get done. Even the freest of direct democracies never has 100% consensus. Some people buckle up and get taken along for the ride, gritting their teeth.

verisimi 2y ago
> A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. It is based in violent use of force. I'm glad to hear that this suits you, I hope your opinions and convictions remain in line with the government's. > Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such) Hmm. This is not something you know; it might be something you believe. Unless you have personal experience of warlords. When you say 'government' I think you are talking about the overt state apparatus - eg politicians, government buildings, courts, police, etc. But I think of a 'governance system', which includes schooling and media and both political parties. We are presented with an illusion of debate, reasoning, etc whilst being guided towards preordained goals. > At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less. Yes, you cannot verify everything. But do you actually verify anything? Eg, what climate change bits have you personally verified? I have tried btw, but the beaches I knew decades ago are still at the same height, plastic bags do not last for 100s of years - ie my personal verification leads me to the opposite conclusions of those that are commonly made. > And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and... You say we... Which group is this that you speak for? Which group has the real handle on truth that it can force everyone else to abide by it? Does truth really need to be forced on others - I would have hoped it it was true, it would demonstrable. If it is not demonstrable, perhaps it is not truth, despite all the books, shows on TV, etc. > So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors. So say, lots of group who are convinced of their position, environmental folk, religious, political, etc. They can't all be right though? It is it that the mightiest are the rightest? For me, all that ideology is a recipe for confrontation. We all have to live here .. can we not do so with conversation, cooperating on those things we care about, and yet not forcing others to go against their conscience? I try not to force others, it seems a viable way to go. And it's not like I know the truth and have never been wrong. I would hate to force something on another, only to realise my force was in error later on, even if I was well meaning at the time. There's really no need to force others to act as you think is right, even if you have read a lot of books. > Then nothing will get done. It's really pretty good already. I don't need to force my "improvements" on the world.