Thorny_Insight @ Thorny_Insight @lemm.ee

---

Read more

Posts

41

Comments

1,874

Joined

2 yr. ago

I disagree. On the internet it seems like the world is burning (and it kind of is) but outside in the real world sun is shining, birds are singing and people are being polite to eachother. Those two places are in no way equivalent.

I usually refrain from replying to threads on those instances and when possible use the non-.ml equivalent

Well sure, no disagreement there. However when talking about plastics and other stuff that remains there in the nature for decades I'd find it really difficult to justify.

Yeah I find it interesting how many see the idea as negative. I find it freeing in many ways and it helps me make much better sense of the world and people, I think.

Sam Harris can explain it better than I ever could in case you're interested.

Just a heads up that this topic makes some people feel really uncomfortable to think about.

It's because I don't think the "self" exists either. Without a self there's nothing that even could make decisions to begin with. I don't believe in some "entity" or a "soul" somewhere inside our heads, behind our faces, looking out into the world and making independent decisions. We're not authoring our thoughts and actions. They're just appearing. You don't know what you're going to think next, and you can't think of a thought before you think it. You can even observe this happening in real time by just paying close enought attention.

We're biological beings that consist of matter, and matter obeys the laws of physics. "Free will" as in "I could've done otherwise" doesn't make any logical sense to me. If we could go back in time we'd all do the same things all over again. That's how deterministic universe works. The key factor here is consciousness. It feels like something to be. The sense of free will is probably useful belief for survival, but for the very least I'd argue that it's not like most people think it is.

Except it doesn't. It's not the body panels that are rusting. It's the airborne iron particles (mostly) from brake rotors that land on the stainless steel and react with it causing rust but it's actually just surface contamination and cleans up rather easily. This is in no way issue exclusive to the Cybertruck. It just doesn't react like that on a painted surface. Fallout remover is a commonly used product among car detailers.

Hate is a toxic emotion. It poisons your own mind but leaves the target of it unaffected.

Also as I don't believe in free will, hate is an uncompatible concept with my world view anyway. It assumes the person I'm directing my anger towards is personally responsible for who they are. In my view they could not be otherwise. I wouldn't hate a bear for being violent so I also don't hate Musk for being an asshole.

It's not the downvotes that's the issue. It's the insanity of being blinded by hatred to the point of not being able to think straight anymore.

It did not. The vehicle was in the owner's garage. I believe it was water in the charging port that caused the front screen to freeze up. Everything else was working normally.

Yeah but surely not to the point of getting disabled?

Ah.. If I remember correctly; not being in a carwash mode caused the screen to freeze and because of a bug the hard reset took hours instead of minutes. The car was back up and running the next day and I believe the bug has been patched as well

EDIT: Imagine the bubble you're in when downvoting factual information is the norm.

I'm out of the loop on this one..?

No, but I don't really care either. It's quite neutral. You do you.

Doesn't seem to be very popular

I perhaps worded the title a little poorly. I'm effectively arguing for steelmanning: if you have a view on a certain topic and thus disagree with the view of someone else, then for the very least you should be capable of repeating back to them their own argument in a way that they agree with. This way you're demonstrating that you actually understood what they said rather than disagreeing with the strawman version of their argument. If one is uncapable of presenting in an honest way any such opposing views to that of their own then there's a good likelihood that they actually haven't considered alternative views but instead landed on it for mostly emotional and intuitive reasons.

This mostly applies to topics of which there is a significant amount of disagreement about as well as fringe views going against the mainstream. Such consideration is less important when talking about facts that there's a broad consensus on.

An example would be a person opposing a political movement but when asked to list some of the stated goals of said movement they then fail to do so. How can one oppose something they don't even understand?

I posted it below already

Counter-argument for this would be that some deeply held ethical convictions might be difficult to argue against because they are based on fundamental values that many consider non-negotiable. These beliefs can be rational, yet difficult to counter without feeling a profound moral dissonance. “Don’t litter” would be a good example that’s really difficult to honestly argue against.

Good point! At this time of the year one doesn't need to go much further north from where I live for the sun to not set all all during the night. It's called the midnight-sun.

The point I'm trying to get at is that if you can't lay out the counter-argument your opponent would make against your view in a way that they would agree with (steelmanning) then you're not debating in good-faith. It doesn't automatically mean you're wrong - it's possible to be right by accident or intuition too, but it does cast doubt on the quality of one's reasoning.

This thread is a good example of that. "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow" and "I need to breathe oxygen" are not good-faith counters to my argument. They're the opposite of that; strawmans. I'm perfectly willing to admit there are edge cases where this way of reasoning falls short (rocks are hard, fire is hot, water is wet ..) but I don't feel like that in any way refutes what is the essence of what I'm saying.

Depends how one defines "winning"

It might win the audience to your side but that doesn't automatically mean you're right. Trump is a great example of this.

That's not exactly what I mean by belief and you know it.

Speaking of sincere counter-arguments..