In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas • Hacker News Board

Re: In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas

#111

Post by rdiddly » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #81

dorkrawk wrote: post #73

"What will they do when they hear opinions they’ve learned to shrink from? If they want to change the world, how will they learn to persuade people to join them?" This seems like an important quote for those who are sad/disappointed/angry about the US election results.

This is pretty key. To persuade someone, you have to understand what they believe, and why they believe it. When you approach a conversation with "the other side is stupid/backwards", their response will be that YOU are just stupid/backwards. One of the things very few partisans seem to want to admit right now, is that the other party is NOT just a bunch of hateful people. That both parties are made up of humans who,…

In other words, everyone reaches their conclusions because of reasons that are understandable. This is exactly what gets shut out when people resort to "othering" people they don't understand, out of laziness.

Re: In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas

#112

Post by rdiddly » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

ashearer wrote: post #19

dominotw wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>one of the most respected news sources Trump only has 20% chance of winning. Dow is going to tank a million points on Trump victory.

If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.

It does if rational interpretation of solid evidence led to a forecast of 70% but instead they reported 20%.

Re: In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas

#113

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 1:42 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #93

scintill76 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, what do anti-gay-marriage people have to gain politically, if they got their way?

The undivided support of the state, which has a legitimate interest in helping make it possible for stable, settled families to produce new generations of citizens and thus to perpetuate itself. From the perspective of any system of rule, this is the purpose of marriage. Homosexual partnerships, which are incapable of producing children, thus are of no benefit to the state, and can only be an unproductive diversion o…

This argument only holds if it also applies to infertile couples, or couples who just don't want children, who also are of no benefit to the state, and does not apply to homosexual couples who want to adopt.

Really, you're making a "childless couples shouldn't be allowed to get married" argument and using homosexuality as a proxy for the desire for children. It's disadvantageous to use proxies when the original metric is just as easily ascertained: Just let people get married when they bear/adopt/whatever a child, and not before.

I feel that a second argument in there is "marriage is only good for the legal protection of children", but I think that ignores the social aspects, even though I find them backward.

Re: In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas

#114

Post by ashearer » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #49

ashearer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.

>that doesn't show dishonesty. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 Not disclosing the 'veto' in the article is pretty dishonest. don't you think? Running 20 front page anti-trump articles everyday and no criticism of Clinton doesn't show any dishonesty?

This is why I don't get usually get involved in political discussions online. Someone who's committed to a position can always bring up new questions instead of responding to the original ones. (In this case I wasn't even taking a position, just pointing out where I found the logical reasoning unconvincing.) While both the new points you raise are open to debate, they shift the topic away from the two I was talking about. If I respond further we could be here forever.

Re: In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas

#115

Post by ashearer » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 9:54 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #112

ashearer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.

It does if rational interpretation of solid evidence led to a forecast of 70% but instead they reported 20%.

That's the question then--is it the case that any rational interpretation of the polls gave an actual forecast of least 70%, and the NYT lied? The parent seemed to be saying that election's outcome alone proved that the 20% number was not only wrong, but dishonest on top of it. You need some more ingredients to prove either of those things, though.

Re: In College and Hiding from Scary Ideas

#116

Post by ashearer » Fri, Nov 18, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

vonklaus wrote: post #92

ashearer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they predict a 20% chance of rain, and it does rain, that doesn't show dishonesty. The second point needs a citation.

Can you not understand how that is not only ibtellectually dishonest, but a terrible analogy

Please illuminate me. I may be wrong, but I certainly wasn't being dishonest. The fact that you leaped straight to that conclusion doesn't help convince me that you have a particularly well-grounded belief in the NYT's dishonesty, either.