In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
At the very very least it should be a heads up that you're either:
A) Most likely wrong.
B) Need to articulate yourself more effectively. That way you won't be misconstrued.... by several people. Who coincidentally have all misconstrued the exact same thing.
But yet again I'm sure everyone else is wrong and you're right. Thanks for spelling it out for me. 😀
lmao he’s actually quadrupling down on the bandwagon fallacy.
lol I support a two-state solution. I have positive views of Palestinians, I just have very negative views of Hamas.I know where the animosity came from, it came from the project of settlements infringing on groups that were occupying the land. Just so I spell it out, that was not a good thing. Ethnic cleansing bad. There I did my lefty virtue signal for the day. Am I now allow
If you want to describe history accurately you wouldn't say that the Irish literally tried to assassinate the UK PM in the 1980s.
If you want to describe history accurately you wouldn't say that the Irish literally tried to assassinate the UK PM in the 1980s.
whomp whomp
lmao he’s actually quadrupling down on the bandwagon fallacy.
Yes I'm aware of the fallacy. Otoh maybe you just have a big ego and can't admit when you're wrong? That might possibly be the case also.😀
whomp whomp
That was the IRA who were a proscribed group, not "the Irish" as such. I don't think it's being unduly pedantic to make this distinction. They were proscribed in Ireland too after all.
Then you should be able to induce that taking food away from someone who is rich and well fed, and giving it to someone on the brink of starvation, should lead to an improvement in general welfare.
Hard to believe you guys are still arguing about whose fault was something that happened so long ago. Or even if one party had any fault at all.
None of the people on either side are alive today, guilt is not hereditary, nor is propensity to violently colonize.
Even if it were, native American tribes certainly massacred other tribes to the point of genocide, and if they had managed to cross the ocean with superior weaponry, they certainly would have attempted to do the same thing to Europeans.
That was the IRA who were a proscribed group, not "the Irish" as such. I don't think it's being unduly pedantic to make this distinction. They were proscribed in Ireland too after all.
"The English" never committed any atrocities either. They were committed by a small group of English: the rich landed men who were involved in political and military leadership and the poor men who were induced to carry out their decisions.
Hard to believe you guys are still arguing about whose fault was something that happened so long ago. Or even if one party had any fault at all. None of the people on either side are alive today, guilt is not hereditary, nor is propensity to violently colonize.Even if it were, native American tribes certainly massacred other tribes to the point of genocide, and if they had man
According to some people if you so much as bring up the fact that indigenous people were humans and were composed of different groups some of which committed horrific atrocities on each other and on the colonists, including on little kids, that makes you a genocide apologist.
Whether you said it or not is immaterial. The whole premise of your post is ridiculous with that context. Like, it's absurd to even mention that the house tenant would be angry with the robber. Like no st sherlock?
Saying they hated each other is the very definition of false equivocation.
That’s the easiest logical fallacy to detect ever. If I was on stormfront saying that black people and white people are both humans, and Jews don’t control the media, I’m sure I’d have dozens, hundreds of posters telling me I’m wrong. Does that mean I should reconsider my opinion just on the basis of the number of people disagreeing?Apparently you
Uhh no. That's a straw man. If you say something and multiple people tell you you're wrong, it's possible you're wrong. He said "If three different people "miscontsrued" what you're saying...maybe it's you." That's reasonable and not the same as you must be wrong if three people tell you you're wrong. If you're going to accuse people of informal logical fallacies so lightly, you should definitely not make them yourself in the same posts.
Except he literally said that if three people say you’re wrong you’re most likely wrong. He only offered misconstruing as a small possibility. Hence the quotation marks. So what exactly is the strawman again?
At the very very least it should be a heads up that you're either:
A) Most likely wrong.
B) Need to articulate yourself more effectively. That way you won't be misconstrued.... by several people. Who coincidentally have all misconstrued the exact same thing.
But yet again I'm sure everyone else is wrong and you're right. Thanks for spelling it out for me. 😀
That you being wrong and getting called out on it is anything like debating whether black people are human on stormfront.
Then you should be able to induce that taking food away from someone who is rich and well fed, and giving it to someone on the brink of starvation, should lead to an improvement in general welfare.
Not obvious at all, like at all.
You can disagree but even common folk wisdom says that you should teach starving people to fish not give them fishes for free.
Also in a malthusian setting (we aren't there today perhaps, but we certainly were there most of the times in human history) you should actually accept that some people starving is often better than to keep the population at a size at which most people starve most of the time.
There are several other considerations that make it not obvious that feeding the hungry is inherently a positive for the group, and you know why? Because there cannot exist a way to say what is objectively better for a group, unless it's a pareto efficient change .
You simply can't define a social welfare function such as you can also confidently claim with certainty that a specific outcome is preferable for the group to another one (again except if pareto efficient).
In some very real sense talking of group welfare is absurd
Because you were 'equivocating about a seemingly condemnable action saying that people on both sides were equally responsible,' when only one side was the aggressive invader seizing the other side's lands.
Lol? Almost none of the land taken was possessed by groups that had not taken it violently previously from others.
I truly don't comprehend a morality according to which some violent land taking is allowed and some other isn't, unless the whole point of the conversation is to hate upon one specific group of people and not to discuss morality.
“We don’t mostly [have animosity anymore]”Oh but you didn’t condemn the British for systematically ethnically cleansing, reducing the population of Ireland by half, and creating a state out of half of it that is still not Irish land to this day. So you must be saying that both sides are responsible because you didn’t include every possible caveat!Europeans are probably the nut
Yeah sure all other cultures consider the violence their ancestors committed for millennia to survive and thrive (something all human groups did everywhere except a few remote areas without encounters) as vile and disgusting.
Oh wait no they don't, because it's absurd to do that.
Europeans are actually one of the only few groups that started doing it recently , and it's a terrible mistake we did, as there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about the fact that your ancestors thrived on widespread and systemic use of violence against all other human groups, same as there is no shame in admitting they had to defecate.
If all human groups had to either wage violence frequently or get genocided historically (and that's simply true and you know it) then maybe the problem is with a morality that is against actions necessary for survival and success, not with those actions.
That you being wrong and getting called out on it is anything like debating whether black people are human on stormfront.
In order for something to be disanalogous, it has to be disanalogous with respect to what the comparison is meant to be showing. In this case, the comparison that is being made is a case where multiple people are telling me I’m wrong, and I should induce that I’m wrong based only on that.
It sounds like you agree that in my analogy, you should not just take the fact that people are telling you that you are wrong as sufficient reason to believe that you are wrong. So if you isolate the comparison just to that piece, you’ll see that it doesn’t matter that I’m using stormfront in the example. That’s just to make the case completely uncontroversial as an example of why you should not think that many people agreeing you are wrong makes you wrong.
No, both governments committed to releasing prisoners from both sides, including even the release of the Shankill Butchers- it was called a peace process and such things were needed for people to move on. Again, the Provos tried to whack Thatcher. Stop mouthing off about things you've clearly no understanding of.
Then you should be able to induce that taking food away from someone who is rich and well fed, and giving it to someone on the brink of starvation, should lead to an improvement in general welfare.
Not obvious at all, like at all.You can disagree but even common folk wisdom says that you should teach starving people to fish not give them fishes for free.Also in a malthusian sett
This is complete bs (as usual).
Simple exemple:
Take enough money from 1 person to feed 100 (or 1000 or w/e).
That 1 person might be a bit worse (psychologicaly) but will still be ok, and you will feed the X as well.
That's not pareto (you love that word as long as it serves you btw).
"The English" never committed any atrocities either. They were committed by a small group of English: the rich landed men who were involved in political and military leadership and the poor men who were induced to carry out their decisions.
The English Crown and forces under English governments did. Show me where I said "The English" in such broad terms or else stop strawmanning and stick to your whingey I hate life and existence misanthropic schtick yeah?
The English Crown and forces under English governments did. Show me where I said "The English" in such broad terms or else stop strawmanning and stick to your whingey I hate life and existence misanthropic schtick yeah?
You completely misunderstood my post. I didn't claim or even imply that you said anything bad about the English. You made the point that the IRA didn't represent the majority of the Irish. I agreed with you and said the same thing was true about the English ruling class and the majority of the English. I wasn't strawmanning, because I wasn't even attempting to criticize you.
whomp whomp
Jfc you think I didnt know about the Brighton bombing, and that it wast all that anyone talked about here for weeks?
That wasn’t an act by the Irish. Most Irish people would have been vehemently opposed to it, as was their government.
Not obvious at all, like at all.You can disagree but even common folk wisdom says that you should teach starving people to fish not give them fishes for free.Also in a malthusian setting (we aren't there today perhaps, but we certainly were there most of the times in human history) you should actually accept that some people starving is often better than to keep the population
Taking away something unneeded by one person and giving it to someone who needs it is a Pareto improvement.
Also, someone starving is not going to be able to learn to fish very well, and a starving child isn't going to be able to learn to take care of himself in any way.
Europeans are actually one of the only few groups that started doing it recently , and it's a terrible mistake we did, as there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed about the fact that your ancestors thrived on widespread and systemic use of violence against all other human groups, same as there is no shame in admitting they had to defecate.
There’s no shame in defecation but you don’t have to do it in every thread.
