3 ms·

Oh please, talk about mixing apples and moons. (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) There might be some things

by berntb 18y ago

Oh please, talk about mixing apples and moons. (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) There might be some things I hold for true on an emotional level, like that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if behind clouds. (see Hume and induction proofs, for instance). The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable.

anamax 18y ago
> (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) > The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. > This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable. Like I said, I've played this game many times before. It starts with statements like the above. And, if it goes through "but those are the only ones", I've always been able to come up with another. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know what your "religions" are, but I'd start looking around the "difference" claim.
- berntb 18y ago
  I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions are wrong, I have changed them lots of times and I'll change again. What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". Hell, vi might be more usable than emacs. Microsoft and other criminal monopolists might not be bad for the world. (I seriously doubt both claims, but they might be true.) If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion". (Note that, as I wrote, I've already discounted ideologies; same garbage as religion for believers. I've also read enough science to believe in the skeptic viewpoint.)
  - anamax 18y ago
    > What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". You know yourself. I know lots of other people who have made exactly the same claims. Maybe you're a unicorn. > If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? > I've already discounted ideologies I read "I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post." as a claim that you didn't follow some "stupid ideology". Are you now now saying that you do follow some stupid ideology but that it's off limits or doubling-down on the original claim?
    - berntb 18y ago
      I DO call you troll, now. Good bye. >>What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? The full quote was of what I wrote can hardly be asking for names of people. If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Quote of me, which was "answered" above: If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion".
      - anamax 18y ago
        > If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Links to conversations that I had in person, most "pre-web"? Some of us have off-line lives, don't blog/tweet everything, and are amused by the assumption that everything worthwhile is on-line. Feel free to do otherwise. > If you want credibility here You certainly do think highly of yourself. (What color is your horn?) However, it's no skin off of my nose of you don't believe me. I will note that you've moved the goal posts. We started from "we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true." with me writing that we should because (my claim) everyone has such positions. At best your "test" isn't the only way to address that claim.
        18y ago

by berntb 18y ago

anamax 18y ago

> (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) > The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. > This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable. Like I said, I've played this game many times before. It starts with statements like the above. And, if it goes through "but those are the only ones", I've always been able to come up with another. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know what your "religions" are, but I'd start looking around the "difference" claim.

berntb 18y ago
I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions are wrong, I have changed them lots of times and I'll change again. What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". Hell, vi might be more usable than emacs. Microsoft and other criminal monopolists might not be bad for the world. (I seriously doubt both claims, but they might be true.) If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion". (Note that, as I wrote, I've already discounted ideologies; same garbage as religion for believers. I've also read enough science to believe in the skeptic viewpoint.)
- anamax 18y ago
  > What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". You know yourself. I know lots of other people who have made exactly the same claims. Maybe you're a unicorn. > If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? > I've already discounted ideologies I read "I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post." as a claim that you didn't follow some "stupid ideology". Are you now now saying that you do follow some stupid ideology but that it's off limits or doubling-down on the original claim?
  - berntb 18y ago
    I DO call you troll, now. Good bye. >>What kind of examples would satisfy you? The names of people who made those claims who I "exposed"? The full quote was of what I wrote can hardly be asking for names of people. If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Quote of me, which was "answered" above: If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion".
    - anamax 18y ago
      > If you weren't full of it, you'd have links etc. Links to conversations that I had in person, most "pre-web"? Some of us have off-line lives, don't blog/tweet everything, and are amused by the assumption that everything worthwhile is on-line. Feel free to do otherwise. > If you want credibility here You certainly do think highly of yourself. (What color is your horn?) However, it's no skin off of my nose of you don't believe me. I will note that you've moved the goal posts. We started from "we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true." with me writing that we should because (my claim) everyone has such positions. At best your "test" isn't the only way to address that claim.
      - 18y ago