3 ms·

I don't accept that this minor qualification is the main critique of Pinker's thesis, which in the end has very little to do with the fact that violence has dec

by noibl 14y ago

I don't accept that this minor qualification is the main critique of Pinker's thesis, which in the end has very little to do with the fact that violence has declined. (And, BTW, this qualification also serves a political agenda which regards terrorism as a discreet phenomenon that can only be dealt with by military means.) But failing to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding outbreaks of violence as being intrinsic to the nature of that violence is, generally, a matter of choice. [Again, the fact that you don't like what I'm saying doesn't give you the right to set the terms of the discussion, and condescending comments about my ability to read don't really help either.] [Edit: Your reply below, which doesn't yet have a reply button, is not coherent so I can't respond to it anyway. (A? B? Bozos? What?) I don't think there's much more that can be usefully said at this point. Speaking of non-falsifiability though, ain't evolutionary psychology a hoot?]

001sky 14y ago
If A->B there are a million (infinite) things C that may or <may not> follow from B. In terms of style you have a lot of "I don't accept..." and "XYZ...serves a political agenda" which are not counter-arguments, but rather non-falsifiable statements about your own beliefs. In particular, your beliefs about C=Politics. Its generally not helpful or interesting to jump the gun to C=politics, without working your way through the discussion of A,B first.[1] ____________________ [1] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/waldo/2012/07/27/the-bozo-event-horizon/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/waldo/2012/07/27/the-bozo-event...
001sky 14y ago
I upvoted you for admitting upthread you mis-understood the premise of the conversation. Its probably best to leave it at that.
- noibl 14y ago
  That's a shameful distortion of what I admitted. Pron explained why the association with your comment was unfair and I admitted that it was. Your comment, however, remains.

by noibl 14y ago

001sky 14y ago

If A->B there are a million (infinite) things C that may or <may not> follow from B. In terms of style you have a lot of "I don't accept..." and "XYZ...serves a political agenda" which are not counter-arguments, but rather non-falsifiable statements about your own beliefs. In particular, your beliefs about C=Politics. Its generally not helpful or interesting to jump the gun to C=politics, without working your way through the discussion of A,B first.[1] ____________________ [1] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/waldo/2012/07/27/the-bozo-event-horizon/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/waldo/2012/07/27/the-bozo-event...

001sky 14y ago

I upvoted you for admitting upthread you mis-understood the premise of the conversation. Its probably best to leave it at that.

noibl 14y ago
That's a shameful distortion of what I admitted. Pron explained why the association with your comment was unfair and I admitted that it was. Your comment, however, remains.