I'm not saying it isn't natural for humans to misinterpret available data,
or to use irrelevant data as though it is relevant.
What I'm saying is, that the message is true or not, irrespective of the messenger. Actively debating the message but using the messenger as evidence will result in flawed conclusions.
Yes, it's natural for humans to do this. No, you should know better.
(, Wed 19 Apr 2017, 12:50, Reply)
Um, well I do think what he says is wrong. I can't be bothered, and no one wants to read a point by point rebuttal.
All I was trying say is that while is full of shit, he's a very convincing bullshitter. He was a lawyer, donchaknow?
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 19 Apr 2017, 12:56,
Reply)
I agree its a lot of shit, and that he's a grade-A bullshitter.
... I just wish we could ignore who's saying stuff and concentrate on what they say.
This is the problem with democracy.
An argument is objectively invalid but we have to take it into consideration because 50 million fuckwits will ponder it seriously because it came from someone who their grandma likes.
Or an argument is objectively well considered and but will be completely ignored because it came from that fuckface who once did a fucking thing they hate.
(, Wed 19 Apr 2017, 14:34, Reply)
Um, are we talking at cross purposes?
I don't believe that a dichotomy can truly exist between a message and its messenger because I don't believe that humans are capable of of any true level of objectivity. Ergo, it is not just the content that matters, form is important too.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 19 Apr 2017, 15:13,
Reply)
Well why bother with anything if that's the case?
Just make whoever seems to be the most popular in charge of everything. Put the Kardashians on the world's throne and let them get on with it.
(, Wed 19 Apr 2017, 16:30, Reply)