If you say "I support UBI" and I say "I support UBI, and here's why...", well, again, only one of us has made an argument.
If I knew that my arguments would be equally convincing whether true or false, what's the point in making them?
-
-
I see refining argument techniques as a necessary prerequisite to talking about real beliefs effectively, not a substitute.
-
Most people involved in overcoming-bias-twitter got there because they had weird ideas they wanted to argue and no one (cont)
-
(cont) would listen because "eh, you can prove anything with arguments". If we want to support our ideas we need better.
-
Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. In my view you are describing a theory of change that is not supported by any 1/
-
Human history or experience. On the contrary, change has been brought about almost exclusively through the kind of "virtue signaling" 2/
-
That "overcoming bias" Twitter treats with such scorn. See: Selma, travel ban on one hand, Mexico City rule & Terry Shiavo on the other 3/3
-
I don't like the "virtue signaling" formulation, rarely use it, and definitely don't use it contrasted with logic.
-
That having been said, I think a theory of change that limits itself to eg Terry Schiavo is too weak. (cont)
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I would probably just vomit out some words that looked like an argument, and call it a day.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.