Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fraud, so much fraud

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–868 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#861

Post by consteval »

mistermann wrote: post #850
consteval wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, this is what I mean. People who take a skeptical approach to masks aren't doing it for scientific reasoning, they're doing it to avoid being a "cuck". This type of mentality actively discredits skeptics, because nobody wants to be lumped in with that. There're genuinely very smart people who were/are skeptical of many Covid policies, but unfortunately, they have to stand next to you. Which, of course, makes them…

> Which, of course, makes them look very stupid Because of normative cognition, which you suffer from, and which is causing the planet to warm up. No problem though, you carry on just as you are, no need for you and yours to improve yourselves.

> which is causing the planet to warm up

Yes, if you don't believe in Global Warming, you are just stupid. I'm not gonna hold your hand when I make you aware of your intellectual insufficiencies - you are stupid.

Now that you know you're stupid, you can either choose to reinforce your stupidity by living in a delusion or you can do a bit of research and catch up to the average human. I don't care either way, but you're passed the point of claiming ignorance. Eventually the stupidity is self-enforced, meaning you and others will go out of your way to ensure you are stupid.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#862

Post by mistermann »

consteval wrote: post #861
mistermann wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which, of course, makes them look very stupid Because of normative cognition, which you suffer from, and which is causing the planet to warm up. No problem though, you carry on just as you are, no need for you and yours to improve yourselves.

> which is causing the planet to warm up Yes, if you don't believe in Global Warming, you are just stupid. I'm not gonna hold your hand when I make you aware of your intellectual insufficiencies - you are stupid. Now that you know you're stupid, you can either choose to reinforce your stupidity by living in a delusion or you can do a bit of research and catch up to the average human. I don't care either way, but you'…

There has surely got to be a better way to discuss important matters like climate change than this.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#863

Post by mistermann »

consteval wrote: post #859
mistermann wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what of the much larger harm your kind causes to the world? Nothing a nice story can't wash clean I suspect, but then that doesn't stop the harm.

My kind? What... round-earthers? Or do you mean people who didn't deny Covid? Hmm I would demonstratablely less harm than you. Because even if masks are almost useless, that's better than nothing, right? Simply being contrarian for the sake of it isn't impressive, it's kind of sad. Sometimes the big dogs are just right. If you can't articulate their motivation, objective value gain, methods, etc, then you're probably…

> My kind? What... round-earthers?

No, normative thinkers.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#864

Post by mistermann »

fluoridation wrote: post #450
mistermann wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe if we taught philosophy in school to a non-trivial level we wouldn't have to rely on trust/faith. I wonder if it's possible to get people to wonder why the one discipline that has the tools to deal with all of these epistemic, logical, etc issues isn't taught in school. You'd think it would be something that people would naturally wonder about, but maybe our fundamentalist (and false) focus on science as th…

Suppose you need to make a decision on a topic that's contingent on P being true, which someone has already tested. How would you go about making the decision without testing P yourself (because that would mean that you would have to do the same for every decision in your life)?

> How would you go about making the decision without testing P yourself (because that would mean that you would have to do the same for every decision in your life)?

This does not seem necessary for my ask above.

There may be many approaches, some impossible/invalid, but perhaps not all.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#865

Post by consteval »

mistermann wrote: post #862
consteval wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is causing the planet to warm up Yes, if you don't believe in Global Warming, you are just stupid. I'm not gonna hold your hand when I make you aware of your intellectual insufficiencies - you are stupid. Now that you know you're stupid, you can either choose to reinforce your stupidity by living in a delusion or you can do a bit of research and catch up to the average human. I don't care either way, but you'…

There has surely got to be a better way to discuss important matters like climate change than this.

There are, and they've been in practice for many decades.

However, I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a functional brain. Therefore, I conclude if someone "doesn't believe" in climate change, that is a choice. Not a matter of ignorance.

I do not pity you enough to spit in your face with hand-holding and euphemisms. There is a deliberate choice and I'll treat you as such.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#866

Post by mistermann »

consteval wrote: post #865
mistermann wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has surely got to be a better way to discuss important matters like climate change than this.

There are, and they've been in practice for many decades. However, I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a functional brain. Therefore, I conclude if someone "doesn't believe" in climate change, that is a choice. Not a matter of ignorance. I do not pity you enough to spit in your face with hand-holding and euphemisms. There is a deliberate choice and I'll treat you as such.

Is imagining shortcomings on my behalf and then categorizing them as factual to use as evidence in an argument a part of these superior approaches you mention?

If I was to do the same to you, would you not protest?

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#867

Post by nobody9999 »

Wyoming23 wrote: post #484
nobody9999 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every few years you can vote left or right, If you're talking about the US, you can vote center-right (Democratic) or far right (Republican). There is no viable left wing party in the US.

These posts are tiresome. They all boil down to "my view should be the middle". You could just as well claim the Democrats are far left and the republicans center left.

>These posts are tiresome. They all boil down to "my view should be the middle".

I don't claim that my views are, or should be, "the middle".

In fact, I didn't share my views at all.

Rather, I contrasted the US Republican Party with the US Democratic Party through the lens of the political spectrum.

Perhaps you think your views are "middle-of-the-road" and maybe they are. I have no idea what you think or believe.

But making the claim you did added absolutely nothing to the discussion, nor did it address anything I wrote. And more's the pity.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#868

Post by consteval »

mistermann wrote: post #866
consteval wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are, and they've been in practice for many decades. However, I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have a functional brain. Therefore, I conclude if someone "doesn't believe" in climate change, that is a choice. Not a matter of ignorance. I do not pity you enough to spit in your face with hand-holding and euphemisms. There is a deliberate choice and I'll treat you as such.

Is imagining shortcomings on my behalf and then categorizing them as factual to use as evidence in an argument a part of these superior approaches you mention? If I was to do the same to you, would you not protest?

I'm not imagining a shortcoming, rather I'm doing the opposite. I'm assuming you've done the proper research around climate change so I'm not going to patronize you with it. Therefore, I conclude you are not ignorant, you're willfully contrarian.

If you interpret that as a worse outcome, here's a thought: stop being willfully contrarian. Sometimes the most popular and most researched opinion is correct. You gain nothing by being contrarian.

Being skeptical is good. Being skeptical means you require a wealth of evidence to believe something. Well, if you don't believe in climate change, you're NOT skeptical - you're just an obnoxious contrarian. Because we have a wealth of evidence and I'm assuming you've reviewed it.

Post reply on HN