d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Trump 2016 > Trump Vs Clinton
Prev1261626172618261926203169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 493691Replies: 31684Track Topic
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#26171
Dec 4 2018 07:01pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 4 2018 11:58am)
i disagree with the bolded, not because its inherently wrong, but because identifying when to use and not use bothsidesism is fraught with peril. i dont generally believe in slippery slope narratives, but i do believe that if CNN were to judge the legitimacy of each topic with regards to Republican opinions, and by extension not invite them on to talk about certain topics, it wouldnt even be a year before the entire network was a disgusting circle jerk.

both fox and CNN bring on the other side's pundits to shoot them full of arrows, i dont think that should factor into the networks credibility, was all i meant. and the very idea of "bothsidesism" is just a kneejerk reaction to "whatabutism" being the official buzzword of Summer-Fall 2018. i can guarantee that 99/100 CNN viewers would vote on a poll to not invite on any right winged people to talk about guns, because they believe the divide is too far and the other side is all liars and NRA shills. and i have a hard time finding ANY issue where the divide is much less, it used to be guns was a topic that stood out as more divisive than the average. now u see hearty squabbles on Christmas decorations. we're all in the sunken place together.


I'm fine with not presenting the other side as legitimate in extreme circumstances, like the global warming debate for the past 10 years, evolution versus creationism, etc. Typically restricted to factual debates that dont hinge on values to judge.

But for things that primarily hinge on value judgement, like gun laws or what to actually do about global warming, then you should interact with the other side as part of the public debate.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 4 2018 07:02pm
Member
Posts: 40,248
Joined: Feb 14 2007
Gold: 5,737.99
#26172
Dec 4 2018 07:09pm
The democratic champion who was supposed to be the lone candle that held at bay the darkness that is Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti, has officially withdrawn his name for the 2020 presidential bid

:o
Member
Posts: 15,467
Joined: Sep 15 2007
Gold: 475.46
#26173
Dec 4 2018 07:11pm
Quote (IgoSoHard @ Dec 4 2018 06:09pm)
The democratic champion who was supposed to be the lone candle that held at bay the darkness that is Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti, has officially withdrawn his name for the 2020 presidential bid

:o


No sir, he was never any of those things.
Member
Posts: 70,459
Joined: Feb 3 2006
Gold: 28,299.69
#26174
Dec 4 2018 07:16pm
Quote (IgoSoHard @ Dec 4 2018 06:09pm)
The democratic champion who was supposed to be the lone candle that held at bay the darkness that is Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti, has officially withdrawn his name for the 2020 presidential bid

:o


He was really popular with people that don't vote and just like to shitpost online all day

nobody serious wanted him and we all shit talked him
Member
Posts: 40,248
Joined: Feb 14 2007
Gold: 5,737.99
#26175
Dec 4 2018 07:53pm
Quote (Brian_D @ Dec 4 2018 08:11pm)
No sir, he was never any of those things.

I should’ve added /s
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
#26176
Dec 4 2018 10:44pm
Ted Liu doesn't have 2 spare brain cells to rub together. Someone needs to take him out to the back and put him out of his misery.
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
#26177
Dec 5 2018 03:39am
Member
Posts: 54,184
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
#26178
Dec 5 2018 04:55am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 5 Dec 2018 02:01)
I'm fine with not presenting the other side as legitimate in extreme circumstances, like the global warming debate for the past 10 years, evolution versus creationism, etc. Typically restricted to factual debates that dont hinge on values to judge.

But for things that primarily hinge on value judgement, like gun laws or what to actually do about global warming, then you should interact with the other side as part of the public debate.


I mostly agree with this. Nonetheless, the scientific consensus should still be questioned from time to time, so that it is forced to keep its arguments and facts sharp, consistent and compelling.

"Here are 300 data sets and studies which prove anthropogenic global warming" is a very different and much better than argument "98% of all scientists agree that we are the cause for global warming (subtext: why dont you just shut up, you stupid, uneducated climate change denier)".

There were also times when 95% of the scholars believed the earth to be flat, or humans to not be able to survive trains going faster than 60mph. As recently as during the 1970s, there was widespread fear among climate researchers that global cooling was a thing and that a new ice age was imminent.

The existence of a consensus on a subject is no valid argument in and of itself. It's not about the herd, it's about substance.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 5 2018 04:56am
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
#26179
Dec 5 2018 05:25am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ 5 Dec 2018 11:55)
I mostly agree with this. Nonetheless, the scientific consensus should still be questioned from time to time, so that it is forced to keep its arguments and facts sharp, consistent and compelling.

"Here are 300 data sets and studies which prove anthropogenic global warming" is a very different and much better than argument "98% of all scientists agree that we are the cause for global warming (subtext: why dont you just shut up, you stupid, uneducated climate change denier)".

There were also times when 95% of the scholars believed the earth to be flat, or humans to not be able to survive trains going faster than 60mph. As recently as during the 1970s, there was widespread fear among climate researchers that global cooling was a thing and that a new ice age was imminent.

The existence of a consensus on a subject is no valid argument in and of itself. It's not about the herd, it's about substance.


Introducing doubt is acceptable, even if it's pretty lame because it's an easy pivot for pure denial.
Taking the risk to jeopardize civilization just because "we arent 100% sure" is a crime* (imo).

*and a business risk management mistake.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Dec 5 2018 05:29am
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
#26180
Dec 5 2018 06:27am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 5 2018 04:55am)
I mostly agree with this. Nonetheless, the scientific consensus should still be questioned from time to time, so that it is forced to keep its arguments and facts sharp, consistent and compelling.

"Here are 300 data sets and studies which prove anthropogenic global warming" is a very different and much better than argument "98% of all scientists agree that we are the cause for global warming (subtext: why dont you just shut up, you stupid, uneducated climate change denier)".

There were also times when 95% of the scholars believed the earth to be flat, or humans to not be able to survive trains going faster than 60mph. As recently as during the 1970s, there was widespread fear among climate researchers that global cooling was a thing and that a new ice age was imminent.

The existence of a consensus on a subject is no valid argument in and of itself. It's not about the herd, it's about substance.


Science does this to itself by rewarding those who overturn the status quo.

Your global cooling comment is an easily debunked denier talking point. It was a media darling but never a seriously considered point among the scientific community.

The "Earth was flat" point hasnt been true for like 3000 years, literally weve known for that long. The scientific method as we know it has only existed for a few hundred years, and even before that the flat earth wasn't seriously considered by anybody in academia.

The scientific consensus isnt there arbitrarily. Its there because its the currently best available explanation and is never accepted as infallible. Usually the inconsistencies in the current theory are the hottest part of a field.

I suggest you, like, actually start researching things you think you know about science because literally every argument you just made is factually wrong.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 5 2018 06:36am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1261626172618261926203169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact