Comment by 0xDEAFBEAD
Comment by 0xDEAFBEAD 5 days ago
>You say hallucination, I say reasonable prediction based on past behavior.
You're also welcome to make a prediction, but label it as a prediction rather than a statement of fact.
Comment by 0xDEAFBEAD 5 days ago
>You say hallucination, I say reasonable prediction based on past behavior.
You're also welcome to make a prediction, but label it as a prediction rather than a statement of fact.
To me, this is the substantive point. It's about intellectual honesty. That's the key thing for me.
From my perspective, most of what you're saying is either (a) not substantive/outright disingenuous, or (b) I don't have much to add. If there is a particular point you really want me to respond to, you're welcome to highlight it and I will consider responding (but honestly probably not, for the reasons I gave).
The point about the NRA's reaction to Kenneth Walker was made in my first comment, and highlighted two comments ago.
Intellectual honesty requires engaging with points in good faith, not just nitpicking and throwing out high handed dismissals like a high school debate club.
Well I don't have much to add to that point. I wasn't taking the position that the NRA is generally good. I'm glad you provided a concrete example, but I was more interested in concrete examples surrounding this incident in particular. I want accusations of hypocrisy to be paired with such concrete examples, if your accusation implies they should be readily available. It's a procedural point--if you accuse someone of hypocrisy it's always good to have some evidence to back it up.
Apparently you only address non-substantive points that you can nitpick. So I guess we're done, unless you'd like to go back and do your homework.