4 ms·

Surely if a thief argues against stealing we will not dismiss their argument just because they're a thief; might call them a hypocrite, sure, but the validity o

Surely if a thief argues against stealing we will not dismiss their argument just because they're a thief; might call them a hypocrite, sure, but the validity of an argument is independent by the moral standing of whoever is presenting it. That's to say, one should read the report, especially the methodology, before fully dismissing it.

aubanel 2y ago
I disagree with this: when an actor is known for repeated bad faith, it's often a net gain of time to dismiss what they say by default. Only if someone else presents the same argument should you take the time to analyze it.
- GeoAtreides 2y ago
  Saying you disagree with my original comment might be inaccurate, seeing how it didn't touch on repeated bad faith; not that habitual lying would make any difference to the validity of any argument (which depends only on being logical sound). I do agree ignoring known and mercenary liars does save time.
  - SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
    Given the history of PwC and the Big 4, whether you specifically mention repeated bad faith or not, it's relevant to whether your analogy holds.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
at_a_remove 2y ago
I disagree, for a purely practical reason: given the number of people on the planet, multiplied by the average number of views and opinions they might hold, gives me so many arguments I could spend lifetime upon lifetime evaluating were I to take them each in full seriousness. Faced with this flood, I must then, if I am to get anything done at all, develop many methods of winnowing on which of them I might spend my time, which on this Earth is without doubt limited. Hypocrisy suggests at least two excellent reasons to immediately discard. First, if I take the option that the person who puts forth the proposition were proselytizing in good faith, then I am left to wonder if this position is consequently so burdensome that even its champions find it too difficult to bear. Never cause harm to any other living thing, and as you extend this past the miniscule deaths of the wee crawling and flying things the broom and mask of the Jain hope to avoid and on to microscopic deaths of the hapless bacteria, it is simply not something tenable, you will fall short simply as a matter of existing, and you have no examples to follow, despite the exhortations. On the other tine of this fork, perhaps the person is operating in bad faith, and wishes to covertly establish an imbalanced set of transactions or relationships, favoring them or their ilk, all via the mechanism of disapproval. Give away your property and do not be chained by material goods. Why, yes, I am picking up what you have dropped but pay no mind to that, you ought to focus on your own sins, you know, now that I have explained them to you. You may have noticed how so many of the people with rude behaviors will deflect to your uncivilized and impolite faux pas of pointing out said rudeness. A virtue, yes, but especially good to possess for people who are not me.

aubanel 2y ago

I disagree with this: when an actor is known for repeated bad faith, it's often a net gain of time to dismiss what they say by default. Only if someone else presents the same argument should you take the time to analyze it.

GeoAtreides 2y ago
Saying you disagree with my original comment might be inaccurate, seeing how it didn't touch on repeated bad faith; not that habitual lying would make any difference to the validity of any argument (which depends only on being logical sound). I do agree ignoring known and mercenary liars does save time.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
  Given the history of PwC and the Big 4, whether you specifically mention repeated bad faith or not, it's relevant to whether your analogy holds.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

at_a_remove 2y ago

I disagree, for a purely practical reason: given the number of people on the planet, multiplied by the average number of views and opinions they might hold, gives me so many arguments I could spend lifetime upon lifetime evaluating were I to take them each in full seriousness. Faced with this flood, I must then, if I am to get anything done at all, develop many methods of winnowing on which of them I might spend my time, which on this Earth is without doubt limited. Hypocrisy suggests at least two excellent reasons to immediately discard. First, if I take the option that the person who puts forth the proposition were proselytizing in good faith, then I am left to wonder if this position is consequently so burdensome that even its champions find it too difficult to bear. Never cause harm to any other living thing, and as you extend this past the miniscule deaths of the wee crawling and flying things the broom and mask of the Jain hope to avoid and on to microscopic deaths of the hapless bacteria, it is simply not something tenable, you will fall short simply as a matter of existing, and you have no examples to follow, despite the exhortations. On the other tine of this fork, perhaps the person is operating in bad faith, and wishes to covertly establish an imbalanced set of transactions or relationships, favoring them or their ilk, all via the mechanism of disapproval. Give away your property and do not be chained by material goods. Why, yes, I am picking up what you have dropped but pay no mind to that, you ought to focus on your own sins, you know, now that I have explained them to you. You may have noticed how so many of the people with rude behaviors will deflect to your uncivilized and impolite faux pas of pointing out said rudeness. A virtue, yes, but especially good to possess for people who are not me.