lmao...
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.
- Thread starter Grat3fulh3ad
- Start date
- Status
i suggest you study denialisim.
Likewise.
Also... this thread is about a specific form of denialism... scientific denialism... so you may want to study that in specific.
The barriers are caused by denialists, not by recognizing the denialists.
lmao...
your silence speaks volumes..
care to disagree with Mr. Hoofnagle concerning your varying definitions of "denialisim" i realize he coined the phrase but you are heady weady after all you know more about it than him im sure.
are you and grapeman related? you both have the same mentality?
Where did I ever say that it was the ONLY correct usage?
I am using it well within accepted definitions, and also being very specific in the intent of my usage, so that there can be no mistaking exactly what I'm talking about.
Scientific denialism is detrimental.
lmao again...
no silence from me... I was just temporarily overcome with laughter inspired by your semantic squirming, and temporarily unable to type more than lmao.
i never said your usage was incorrect...
you are correct in your usage as am i in mine..
i believe multifaceted was the word i used.
as well as myopic..
do you need OED ?
ok that is a direct quote from grapeman as to why marijuana should remain illegal!
i call shenanigans!!!
I've got everything I need.
So since you acknowledge that I am suing the word correctly... let's discuss what I have made clear, instead of distorting what I said by trying to apply definitions I clearly excluded from my intent, and basing your entire position on a definition which I am clearly not using.
Can you handle that?
You understand in a debate that the opening speaker arguing the affirmative gets to define the terms for the purposes of the discussion, right?
are we to use robert's rules henceforth?
Not necessarily... but if your reply to a persons statements is based on using terms in such a manner as has been excluded by the other party's usage and stated definition, then your reply becomes much much less relevant... perhaps even becoming completely moot.
I just assumed you'd want to remain relevant.
I just assumed you'd want to remain relevant.
oic so you want a discussion about what then?
lets see how this goes..
1:"lets discuss A"
2:"well i think blah about A"
1:"that does not fit my definition"
2:"ok we agree to only talk about YOUR definition"
1:"ok we agree"
2:"yep your definition is your definition"
1:"yep"
2:"nice talk"
1:"you too"
so you just want some agreement in your thread..
got it..
That might be how it went... if the topic being discussed (A) was "the definition of A" instead of some aspect concerning #1's actual intended definition of A. Especially when #2 acknowledges that #1's definition is one of the correct definitions (even if it is not the only definition). I guess #2 could opt out, but there would be no real reason to.
If I make a statement about BREAD, and I am talking about money, then any reply made as though I was talking about bread as a food baked from a paste made of ground up grains, would be irrelevant as anything but comedy. Even if I originally failed to provide the definition, once I corrected the oversight it would be pointless to converse as though I had not.
This thread is to discuss the implications of scientific denialism, not to discuss the definition of the term denialism... I defined the term for the purposes of this thread very clearly... If your position is not built on the fallacious argument techniques outlined in the first post, then you are not considered a denialist at all for the purposes of this discussion.
We can define scientific denialism as a specific thing, and discuss many aspects of that specific thing or whether or not that thing even occurs, without having to spend 10 pages arguing over the definition.
Since you agree that I am using the term correctly, then why can we not talk about the topic for a bit instead of quibbling over the definition of the topic?
denying an aspect of denialisim to frame a discussion in a very narrow way..
nope yall have your agreement party.
i have realized there is no room in that steel trap for nuance or subtlety.
if you cant see that denialisim being used as a rhetorical tool by both sides of any issue IS pertinent to the discussion....well then it is what it is.
but i think the fundamental difference is in outlook...
i keep going back to "having the upper hand" in my mind.
i just dont think that our thought processes are compatible and never could be. i just dont think that way. thats not a dig at you... the world needs politicians. i just dont think we are operating from the same place in our hearts.
i'm not denying that there are other aspects, I'm just pointing out that they are not what I am talking about. What more can I do?
If we're going to talk about baking bread, I am not denying that some people call money bread... it's just that that's not what the discussion is about.
I'm no politician, and neither are the scientists... In fact much of the denialism is pushed by politicians... The reason out views are incompatible, is because you insist on talking about bread when i'm clearly only talking about bread.
You have already admitted that I am using the term correctly, why would you insist on having a conversation about all denial, when this one has clearly been limited to only 'scientific denialism'?
Our views will ever remain incompatible when your views of my views are based on your definitions and exclude the definitions I stated I was using. You discuss like a politician, I discuss like a scientist.
You really have to stop shoving my thoughts into your pre-concieved molds... I understand you have a chip on your shoulder about the psychological state of being in denial, because people who were denying valid science once mislabeled you. I understand that the glasses through which you view the topic are tinted by your resentment. But If I tell you that I'm not talking about denial or denialism in general at all (except of course as necessary to define scientific denialism), and am only talking about the denial of things that can be empirically verified... And that I do not think that many of the things labeled as denial are appropriately labeled, to actually be guilty of denialism the thing being denied must be provable...
Skeptics use evidence to refute (or confirm) that about which they are skeptical... denialists just deny regardless of the evidence....
Do you think celebrities and pundits denying the necessity of vaccinations, or denying the veracity of the science refuting the vaccine/autism link, and causing uninformed parents to put their children at increased risk, is detrimental?
Do you think that Those denying the link between HIV and AIDS, or denying that condom use can prevent AIDS (some even proposing that condoms cause AIDS), are detrimental?
Or I guess you could just keep enjoying your arguing semantics to avoid the actual topic party.
One has to be pretty dense to think that agreeing to use a certain definition in order to have a productive conversation where people can disagree about something other than semantics and understand what the other person's point is, is an agreement party.
Last edited:
the difference is you want to talk only about rye
but pointing out that sourdough is also bread is offensive to you..
im talking about "denialisim" as defined bt the man who coined the term.
you want to disregard his definition substitute it with one you created piecemeal with c&p and thats ok...just dont call it debate lol
If you aren't using the same definitions then you are not talking about the same topic.
Let's see how it goes:
1: look a fruitbowl, there are some apples in it, what do you think about apples?
2: Well I see there are some oranges in the bowl, too.
1. right on, but I was trying to start a conversation about apples, what do you think about those apples in the bowl?
2: I can't talk about apples, there's oranges in the bowl, too.
1: yup, but oranges are not apples, and the apples are there in the bowl, in plain sight... what do you think about the apples?
2: Well, oranges are juicy, and those particular oranges look under ripe.
1: what about the apples?
2: I can't believe you are pretending the oranges are not there.
1: I can see the oranges, but I was asking your opinion about apples, so the oranges condition is irrelevant to my original question.
2: MMMmmm, oranges... If we talk about apples it's an apple loving party.
1: nah, you can badmouth the apples if you have cause.
2: MMmm oranges.
I don't want agreement, I just want to talk about the apples that are in the bowl...
got it?
Let's see how it goes:
1: look a fruitbowl, there are some apples in it, what do you think about apples?
2: Well I see there are some oranges in the bowl, too.
1. right on, but I was trying to start a conversation about apples, what do you think about those apples in the bowl?
2: I can't talk about apples, there's oranges in the bowl, too.
1: yup, but oranges are not apples, and the apples are there in the bowl, in plain sight... what do you think about the apples?
2: Well, oranges are juicy, and those particular oranges look under ripe.
1: what about the apples?
2: I can't believe you are pretending the oranges are not there.
1: I can see the oranges, but I was asking your opinion about apples, so the oranges condition is irrelevant to my original question.
2: MMMmmm, oranges... If we talk about apples it's an apple loving party.
1: nah, you can badmouth the apples if you have cause.
2: MMmm oranges.
I don't want agreement, I just want to talk about the apples that are in the bowl...
got it?
If I start a discussion specifically about rye bread, and all of your comments are about flatbread... they aren't very relevant.
You can point out that there are other breads, and I can remind you that the thread is about rye.
not offended by sourdough, just wasn't ever talking about sourdough, and sourdough has no relevance to the rye bread I started a thread about.
- Status
