What's new
By:

Coronavirus

JazzMan4Life said:
This take is weird to me. Measles vaccines and Covid vaccines are very different. Judging someone for questioning that difference is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No moral judgment was intended in my calling his take naive, nor do the actual differences subtract from my point.
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
For those not aware, ACB responded to a question saying she would not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual preference. For saying that, Senator Hirono immediately condemned ACB as an anti-LGBTQ bigot because the term 'sexual preference' implied that sexual orientation was a choice. Within hours after Senator Hirono making the claim that it was a term of hate speech used by bigots, Merriam-Webster changed their definition to retroactively justify the claim.
Click to expand...
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a well-know fallacy, even if Krakauer was correct about the timing of the change.

Al-O-Meter said:
There is nothing wrong with the definition I provided earlier.
Click to expand...
"Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired" -- Jonathon Swift
 
One Brow said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a well-know fallacy, even if Krakauer was correct about the timing of the change.
Click to expand...
Wishing for a thing to be true does not make it so. They did it on purpose and admitted as much in writing. Merriam-Webster released a statement when everyone asked WTF.

"In this case, we released the update for sexual preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings."
--Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster's editor-at-large
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Wishing for a thing to be true does not make it so. They did it on purpose and admitted as much in writing. Merriam-Webster released a statement when everyone asked WTF.

"In this case, we released the update for sexual preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings."
--Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster's editor-at-large
Click to expand...
This does not mean the update was intended to condemn Barrett. Senator Hirono was referred to a popular sentiment at the time, and dictionaries reflect popular usage.
 
One Brow said:
Since most people are not rational, presentation of the truth matters if you want to encourage certain behaviors, like vaccination.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your point of view and have zero doubt on your intention or sincerity. We just disagree. I think the massaging the truth in order to encourage certain behaviours is very much not the way to go and leads to other sequelae
 
One Brow said:
This does not mean the update was intended to condemn Barrett. Senator Hirono was referred to a popular sentiment at the time, and dictionaries reflect popular usage.
Click to expand...
That was definitely not a popular sentiment at the time. It wasn't even much of a fringe sentiment. I live on the bleeding edge of the culture war and even I had never heard of the left trying to cancel someone for vowing not to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. At the time, the struggle session shamers were pushing a cake-and-eat-it-too idea of it being fluid and being biologically based. They believed that many people were gay all along but society had pressed them into straight conformity. Senator Hirono came out of left field which was why everyone went scrambling for the dictionary.
 
Douchebag K said:
I appreciate your point of view and have zero doubt on your intention or sincerity. We just disagree. I think the massaging the truth in order to encourage certain behaviours is very much not the way to go and leads to other sequelae
Click to expand...
Every statement of a truth is a massage.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
I live on the bleeding edge of the culture war and even I had never heard of the left trying to cancel someone for vowing not to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.
Click to expand...
Here's an article from 1991, some 19 years before the Barrett confirmation. Maybe you're not as leading edge as you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top