undefined | Better HN

0 pointsImPostingOnHN2y ago0 comments

you weren't able to do so, since "X is ridiculous to deny" is orthogonal to "there exist people who deny X", and the latter is the tangent deflected to. Like I said, anyone actually spending ten seconds researching the topic in good faith would discover that both round-earth denialists and climate-change denialists exist in real life, no matter how ridiculous their beliefs

anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

brightball2y ago· 1 in thread

I explained plain as day how it’s easy to be skeptical of anything that can’t be verified quickly and then explained the difference.

There’s not a lot left to say if you’re going to ignore that.

ImPostingOnHNOP2y ago

>I explained plain as day how it’s easy to be skeptical of anything that can’t be verified quickly and then explained the difference

maybe, maybe not. Problem is, that's totally, absolutely, and completely irrelevant to your tangent, which was: you doubted the existence of round earth deniers in real life

(when they do, in fact, exist, just like climate change deniers, no matter how ridiculous either of them or their beliefs are)

see, you neglect that some people are also skeptical of things which CAN be verified quickly, for many varied reasons which we'll for expedience summarize here as "the dumb", and many of these round-earth-denying, perhaps climate-change-denying people are in the "we're losing faith in science!!!1" crowd

which brings us back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse