Jiro
1yr ago
Define "descendents of". If it includes people with X% Muslim ancestry, we should only expect X% of that subgroup to identify as Muslims. If greater than X% do, then Islam is actually growing among that subgroup even though X is less than 100.
Jiro
1yr ago
If you honestly didn't know the quote was cut off, of course you didn't mislead anyone. But the quote itself is still misleading, even if the blame is on the person who provided it to you, and for the same reason: even if he thinks the omission "doesn't change the meaning", he needs to leave the words in and argue that they don't matter, not silently remove them.
(perhaps he knew I was Jewish?).
I think the author missed or was glossing over that Haredim are skewing his numbers. Many Jews under 30 are religious because Haredim have a high birth rate, and many Jews earn under $30000 because that figure includes Haredim.
Jiro
1yr ago
American gun violence is unequally distributed by race, which makes comparisons to other areas hard.
The rejoinder to that,
The rejoinder to that is religious people putting words in the mouths of nonreligious people and imagining that they would say something convenient for the religious people.
If you showed me a demon, it wouldn't prove the existence of the supernatural, but it would be evidence, and the weight of evidence could convince me like it would for anything else. If you showed me one demon for a minute and took it away before I could take a photo, ask someone else to look at it, or otherwise rule out mundane explanations, I wouldn't believe, but that's because your evidence is pretty bad, not because nonbelievers always ignore the evidence.
Also, not all supernatural things are equal. If you showed me a demon, I'd believe in powerful beings that can do weird things. I might still wonder if they're demons or aliens, and I wouldn't believe in transsubstantiation.
Jiro
1yr ago
What about Jews? Jews started as poor immigrants with a history of centuries of persecution. And it didn't take 300 years for them to catch up.
Jiro
1yr ago
On the contrary, what is the HBDer’s answer?
The same as the answer of Jews or Asians when whites complain about them doing too well.
America does for instance have too much gun violence.
The optimal amount of any crime is non-zero, short of lizardman constant situations. This is true for gun violence as much as anything else.
Besides, since some gun violence is self-defense, the optimal amount of it isn't zero anyway.
Jiro
1yr ago
Someone who read your post would have no idea that you removed the end of the quote, let alone that you thought you had good reason for removing it. That's deceiving them as to what the quote actually said. Your readers wouldn't even have known that you cut it off at all if someone else hadn't noticed it and called you on it.
Jiro
1yr ago
The obvious reply to that is "why do Asians do well?" Shouldn't it take hundreds of years for them to catch up too? (Of course, Asians weren't quite as disadvantaged, but I wouldn't say they had a hundred year head start either.)
Jiro
1yr ago
Nobody here is going to be impressed if @ymeskhout tries to win on a technicality instead of the substance of the issue. Moreover, if he did act in some kind of unreasonable procedural way
Debate skills let you win in a good-sounding way, not in a procedural way. You say something and your opponent can't respond, or you demolish something your opponent says. You may really have said something with a subtle flaw that your opponent didn't pick up on, and you "demolished" your opponent through bad reasoning, but your debate skills will make it look good for the audience.
Jiro
1yr ago
obviously, it was an extremely poorly done cover up because here you are talking about it.
If taken seriously, this makes your claim unfalsifiable. Nobody can ever prove a coverup is successful because if they're even able to talk about it, it's not successful.
It's a well-done coverup because nobody's going to be jailed or even arrested for killing Epstein. And it's a "well-done" coverup in the sense that ymeskhout's standards would imply that he shouldn't believe it's a coverup, even though it obviously is. The fact that everyone else can say "hey, Bayseian probability, this wouldn't have happened by chance" and figure it out won't change that.
Jiro
1yr ago
In other words, the half life of cover ups is shorter and the big crazy stuff is just not going to fly.
What about Epstein's "suicide"?
Jiro
1yr ago
You just said you didn't need an exhaustive list. Does this comment mean you are changing your mind?
Jiro
1yr ago
If this is a concern to anyone, I'm more than happy to
I will repeat from what I just posted:
And if your response is "fine, I'll do X so that's not a problem," that won't work since it isn't an exhaustive list.
Jiro
1yr ago
I'm pretty sure that tying it into Mexico would be considered racist by most of the same people for whom tying it to China would be considered racist.
Jiro
1yr ago
Let's start with "as a trained debater, you have a higher chance of being able to say things with subtle flaws that your opponent cannot resolve in time".
(And if your response is "fine, I'll do X so that's not a problem," that won't work since it isn't an exhaustive list.)
Jiro
1yr ago
I said "trained lawyer or equivalent". "Or equivalent" includes being a trained debater who doesn't actually practice law.
This is also a good example of not being able to phrase the objection to cover all the loopholes in advance. I thought I covered being sharp and having skills, but it seems you think the way I phrased it didn't.
It's essentially the rationalist bet scenario.
Jiro
1yr ago
Nobody can possibly give an exhaustive list of all the ways in which the rules can advantage a trained lawyer. Asking for them to give a list of rule objections just leads to a situation where they left one out or didn't phrase their objection properly, and you go "Ha ha, well now you admitted in advance the rules are okay, so I can do anything I want that you didn't mention, and you have no reason to complain".
It's just like the situation with rationalist bets, except instead of "you're probably not going to phrase the bet in a way free of loopholes" it's "you're probably not going to phrase your objection to the rules in a way free of loopholes".
Jiro
1yr ago
Nobody can know that a claim is the strongest out there. They can know that it's the strongest they've seen so far.
Jiro
1yr ago
That doesn't excuse a misquote. If you leave out the words, you're being deceitful. If you leave out the words and they "don't change the meaning", you're still being deceitful, because the claim that they don't change the meaning is not an objective, undisputed, fact, it's something you have to explicitly argue. You can't just assume it to be true, and edit the quote silently.
Jiro
1yr ago
I mean, he could have made immigration law take morality into account but didn't
"I think by his actions he would have sympathized with the position in the misquote" is not an excuse for a misquote.
Questions like "why don't they ship the permafrost off to some place where it's safer to melt" and "why can't they buy the stuff they need instead of getting it from pollution" are more "they have no common sense" than "they know nothing about science".
More options
Context Copy link