Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from fossil capitalism.
Break the economy for who? Who is it actually working the best for now? The wealthy elite love the status quo because they are the ones benefitting from it the most.
Even a random middle class midwest family would benefit from moving away from fossil capitalism, since if done correctly the renewable investments would create millions of new jobs ("new" meaning in a different industry). People need to be able to envision what an ideal future could look like, instead of just the dystopian version of the current reality.
I don't think that the Midwest is where the people majorly negatively-impacted would be. It's people in the states that have low populations and a lot of fossil fuel extraction, like Wyoming.
Nothing. These days? Not because I don't know things, but because a lot of people refuse to accept new information, even when it comes from reputable peer-reviewed sources and there's not much arguing with that.
I spent so long trying to make myself see blue-and-black. Kind of resigned that I can't do it.
I've managed to game other optical illusions by covering bits of them up, to break the effect, and then slowly shift the amount covered. Cover one eye. Focus on one part of the image.
I can make the Necker cube be in either orientation.
If it is true that the differential interpretation of the light source causes the disagreement about the percept, we should be able to recreate the effect de-novo:
And we did: We put a pink croc under green light so it looks grey, then added white socks which — reflecting the green light appeared green. People who know that these socks are white used the green tint as a cue that something is off with the light and mentally color-corrected the image. To them, the croc looked pink, even though the pixels are objectively grey. People who took the color of the socks — green — at face value, saw the croc — consistent with its pixel values – as grey.
But I think it's because I'm color correcting the Crocs from the green, but the socks, while I acknowledge are likely white in reality, do look very green from reflecting green light
But then, yeah, there's the difference of "do we take it at face value, or try to figure out what the 'real' colour is in neutral light?"
So this is really strange. I followed the link in the post above to look at the dress again and, as always, it's obviously blue and black, but I kind of stared at the white background of the wiki page, and just barely kept the top left corner of the dress in my vision. I shit you not, the dress slowly turned more white and I looked down at the rest of the dress and the stripes were gold! At first it was subtle but it gradually became blatantly white and gold.
Then I looked away, and it was black and blue again.
Winning an argument would mean your opponent has enough sense to admit they were wrong, and I just don't hold 99% of the people I come across to that standard anymore.
This one is one of the most stupid arguments IMO, the answer is so obvious that it's impossible to defend the other side of the argument in writing without misspelling the word.
That there does not exist an argument one could reliably win on account of there always being someone people stupid enough to insist they are right even when confronted with absolute proof and perfect knowledge.
—————-
Any argument as long as i am willing to stop caring about facts.
Do mean, "what controversial topic would I be correct about", or do you mean, "what can i make the other person shut up about"? Because those are different skills, and it's the reason why politicians win over the public and scientists get derided.
Honestly nothing. The more I read and listen about any topic that can be debated the more unsure I am of my stance. I'm pretty sure that billionaires simply shouldn't be allowed to hoard so much money, but I'd probably fold under a multi-layered, informed rebuttal - it's more a gut feeling that i'd likely fail to articulate.
Indiana Jones could have just stayed home and Raiders Of The Lost Ark would have ended the exact same way but without him dragging that one lady through hell.
Winning means you shut down the other person and makes him feel stupid for being wrong? Then you havent won anything. You just lost.
The entire school system is explicitly training people to be afraid of being wrong.
You only learn something when you are wrong. It should be celebrated to be wrong. But in our culture, we have made it into a ego thing. That being right means you are better, smarter, more educated. Such bullshit.
What am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts, or what am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts AND have the other person understand and change their view/opinion on? Two different scenarios
Came here to say something similar. And also to point out that this opinion is a perfectly sound argument in and of itself, thus making it somewhat paradoxical in context.
Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It's not. And I'd start by questioning your understanding of the word "matter".
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It's encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn't expect to see as many others here as I have.
Matter has a specific meaning in physics but for this purpose I'd define matter as anything that exists in the world and behaves according to the rules of physics.
We can do science to determine how matter behaves and we can determine it keeps behaving that way whether any conscious being is interacting with it. That's why I think matter is more of a foundation of reality than experience. Experience can come and go but matter keeps doing its thing.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
There's the crux of it. Problem is that science is the product of the human mind. Experience isn't just the foundation of knowledge, it has to be the foundation of everything because to say anything about anything, nonsense or science, you need experience first. This includes any idea about what matter is or isn't. We must first have an experience, and then we conceptualize it in some way - and then we try to desperately conceptualize it in a way that makes sense in the context of our previous conceptualizations. Because ironically, while some people insist on matter being prior, without realizing it they often make the human mind equally prior ("thoughts ARE the thing itself"). Bring them the map-territory problem and they get it, but it's often hard to get them to apply the same idea onto their own mind.
To be sure, science is a great and reliable way to make predictions. However, ultimate reality will always be grander than anything the mind can capture, and as such, science will never be able to distill it either. That said, one hopes, eventually science will meet this realization (and indeed some scientists have). To put it very shortly, as long as one insists on a logical continuum, one can keep asking "and what's beyond that" as logic necessarily requires a continuum of values to function. Foundation on which logic operates though, must be beyond what can be captured with logic.
The fact that police can lie to your face in order to trick you into saying something they can label as “incriminating” leads to society having no trust for the police.
Nothing. I've spent my life arguing and several years arguing professionally. There are not many bigger wastes of time. I still do it, just to speak my peace, not because I'm hoping to change a bunch of minds.
I'm a woman who has slurs about her. Depending on who I'm arguing and what winning means I can't win an argument about whether it's raining as we slowly get drenched.
That said in a constructive discussion I'm really good at convincing people that comprehensive public transit is valuable, that public services are important, and that a general sense of cooperation is invaluable for society.
Nothing, conclusively, since I am already at a disadvantage because my brain processing speed can be low at times for debates and is riddled with over thinking about how to reply, but I sure as hell could try winning an argument on why cartoons are better than live action. Or why my absolute favorite webcomic Peter & Company is something people should give a try.
If I remember correctly, I am pretty sure it's implied he might be a little mentally slow, if you catch my drift. Though I don't think they play that off for laughs in a negative way, thankfully.
I'd have to go way back to when they first introduce him and read a few more issues with him in it afterwards to verify that, though, since it's been forever since I've read some of the earlier issues.
Edit:
Looks like in the short storyline Peter and Iggy first meet, Iggy was written using with some letters flipped alongside having random lowercase letters dotted about uppercaps, so I definitely think they were going a little overboard on the mentally slow thing. It kinda looks like the sArCaSm thing is more of a way to show he's still a little slow, but in a slightly less offensive manner.
Magenta is a mass delusion. It has no wavelength, it exists only because of the boundaries in our perception.
We aren't able to see the world as it is, and yet hubris is so baked into the very essence of our being that our brains invent something to deny it. That is majenta. It is an egregore of vision, something we have dreamed into being and subsequently found ourselves made hostage to. It is a stalwart guardian protecting our feeble minds from the unfiltered reality of the world.
I could win why there is no god but many people can not accept this since it would literally destroy them with this belief, hence reject it as self protection. That's just how humans work.
Bringing me back to the question. What even is 'winning an argument'?
(If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)
(If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)
lol no I just think what you said is wrong and arrogant about being able to win that argument from even a logic perspective. Arguing the absence of lowercase-g god is a Sisyphian task if ever there was one. It reads like a teenager who binged Dawkins videos wrote it.
I don't care how it looks and it would take time etc sure, but I am convinced. I could go on ranting about arrogant views of neurotypicals always assuming the wildest stuff but I simply don't care.
Just rest assured this is not an edgy teenager statement.
(I'm used to being called arrogant. That comes with the specialist field I am in and also due to the double empathy issue)
In short, the Young Earth Creationist position is that all the plate tectonics and radiological dating issues happened because of the flood. This means the plates would have to have moved very fast, and the resulting friction creates heat. Incredible amounts of heat. Likewise, radioactive decay releases heat, too. To do all the changes necessary to do that in the space of about a year it would generate enough heat to turn the entire planet into a plasma.
This may actually be "checkmate, YEC!", at least in a sense. Not because they'll change their mind about God or anything, but because they prefer to have physical solutions if possible. It's easier to convince other people if you keep reliance on the supernatural to a minimum. But there's just no way around this one. You have to rely on the supernatural to fix it. There's just too much heat, otherwise.
According to a new, Harvard-led study, geochemical calculations about the interior of the planet’s water storage capacity suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been one to two times larger than it is today, and possibly covered the planet’s entire surface.
“It depends on the conditions and parameters we look at in the model, such as the height and distribution of the continents, but the primordial ocean could have flooded more than 70, 80, and even 90 percent of the early continents,” said Junjie Dong, a Ph.D. student in Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who led the study. “In the extreme scenarios, if we have an ocean that is two times larger than the amount of water we have today, that might have completely flooded the land masses we had on the surface of the early Earth.”
They're saying that there isn't enough water on the surface today, but that an undetermined amount of water that used to be on the surface is now below the surface, and it's possible that that amount is sufficient that all land was at one point submerged.
Sure, if you don't mind breeding vegetables for your own greedy enjoyment, I guess you can get on a high horse just because you don't also abuse animals.
Growing plants to eat kills fewer plants than growing plants to feed to livestock which you then eat. The "plants' rights activist" argument is invalid.
Curious to hear your explanation for how being non-vegan can be more ethical than being vegan. I've heard some people make interesting cases for this, by the way, but I've yet to see one that can be practically applied as an alternative to our current food system.
Help me out here then. You said being vegan and not being vegan are both ethical choices, like the trolley problem.
In the trolley problem, an ethical case can be made for pulling the lever or not, so I thought you were saying an ethical argument could be made for both being vegan and not being vegan. I was curious to hear your argument for the latter.
I can argue the uselessness of most American gun laws. I should note, a great many of the arguments rely on the fact of the 2nd Amendment and our court's historical interpretation of it.
Almost every law I see proposed either runs afoul of the 2nd, is useless, and worse, many are counterproductive.
Can I ask what your solution is to the problem besides going door to door and raiding people's homes? Because youre never going to get the guns away from people who have them. I have yet to see a solution.
Nowadays nothing. Part of the problem is im not really looking to win an argument. Im looking to discuss but I have my own conclusions since at this age there is little to nothing I have not thought about at some point. When I say conclusions though that is just a current end state not some sort of this is it and could never be different thing. All the same its not like someone stating they really really think its different or this written thing in my belief is definitive fact is going to cause me to jump up and change.
That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he's a jerk).
That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.
Arguments are for children and those with the mental maturity of a schoolyard bully.
Conversations are where the mature people duke it out, and the point of a conversation is not to win but to see each other on equal ground, understand the position of the other party, and come to a conclusion that benefits both parties.
Journal of Semantics covers all areas in the study of meaning, with a focus on formal and experimental methods. It welcomes submissions on semantics, pragmatics, the syntax/semantics interface, cross-linguistic semantics, experimental studies of meaning, and semantically informed philosophy of language.
"When he was eating his juice and crackers at lunchtime, Jonathan enjoyed a little light reading."
I have no idea how you and your other up voters read what I wrote and thought "semantics".
Arguments are "I am right, you are wrong."
Conversations are "I feel I am right, and you feel you are right. Let's try to understand each other and figure out where the disconnect is and how we can meet on common ground to come to an outcome we are both happy with."
There are nuances. Arguments have an undertone of superiority. Conversations have an undertone of trying to understand the other person's perspective and realizing that if somebody has the same perspective as you then you wouldn't be in the situation to begin with.
Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that there are some things where there is no room for conversation - things where facts are being disputed.
This post is an argument since I am too lazy to engage in conversation.
127 Comments
zd9@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 279d
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from fossil capitalism.
orize@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 279d
You are right and I would vore for this 11/10 times.
Yet, it would break the economy of it were to happen. And 99999/100000 people are status quoers 🫤
zd9@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 279d
Break the economy for who? Who is it actually working the best for now? The wealthy elite love the status quo because they are the ones benefitting from it the most.
Even a random middle class midwest family would benefit from moving away from fossil capitalism, since if done correctly the renewable investments would create millions of new jobs ("new" meaning in a different industry). People need to be able to envision what an ideal future could look like, instead of just the dystopian version of the current reality.
tal@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 279d
I don't think that the Midwest is where the people majorly negatively-impacted would be. It's people in the states that have low populations and a lot of fossil fuel extraction, like Wyoming.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 278d
The Midwest already has a lot of biogas facilities. But they employ like 2 people each and are owned by huge corps.
Geodad@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 279d
msokiovt@lemmy.today · -1 pts · 279d
Good luck getting them to do that. The real climate criminals live in the Vatican.
zd9@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 279d
Nah get outta here with your weird cult bullshit. Here's a list for you
Luci@lemmy.ca · 27 pts · 279d
Who the bestest boy/girl is.
To a dog, of course.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 279d
What I’ve got in my pocket.
boydster@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 279d
That's not fair! It's against the rules!
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 279d
Is it... MY PRECIOUS?!?
MimicJar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
Your hand.
tiredofsametab@fedia.io · 19 pts · 278d
Nothing. These days? Not because I don't know things, but because a lot of people refuse to accept new information, even when it comes from reputable peer-reviewed sources and there's not much arguing with that.
asmoranomar@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 278d
Nah man, you're wrong. Just saying. /s
tiredofsametab@fedia.io · 2 pts · 278d
No I'm not!
(I was considering just posting the Monty Python argument scratch instead)
tal@lemmy.today · 18 pts · 279d
That this dress is white and gold. I mean, just look at it. It's self-evident.
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/88909fd1-7021-4c1e-84a7-d5272f4b6541.jpeg
:-)
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 279d
I still don't see it.
tal@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 279d
I spent so long trying to make myself see blue-and-black. Kind of resigned that I can't do it.
I've managed to game other optical illusions by covering bits of them up, to break the effect, and then slowly shift the amount covered. Cover one eye. Focus on one part of the image.
I can make the Necker cube be in either orientation.
I've seen The Spinning Dancer run in both directions.
But The Dress remains determinedly white-and-gold.
RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 279d
On the other hand, I've never seen white and gold.
tal@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 279d
These guys apparently reproduced the effect.
One apparently either sees white socks and pink crocs, or green socks and gray crocs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-life-of-the-mind/202502/the-dress-10-years-on
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/b41aa1cd-3d1b-4ef8-886f-2c6494141805.jpeg
EDIT: For me, it's green socks and gray crocs.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 278d
I see green socks and pink crocs lol
But I think it's because I'm color correcting the Crocs from the green, but the socks, while I acknowledge are likely white in reality, do look very green from reflecting green light
But then, yeah, there's the difference of "do we take it at face value, or try to figure out what the 'real' colour is in neutral light?"
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 278d
Holy shit, I stared at the green socks really close for awhile and now the white and gold dress is blue and black! No way!
slackassassin@piefed.social · 2 pts · 277d
I just did the same thing. I had never seen the blue/black, ever. Now I can't see white/gold. I don't known who I am anymore!
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 277d
I came back to it after a bit and it was back to white/gold.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 279d
So this is really strange. I followed the link in the post above to look at the dress again and, as always, it's obviously blue and black, but I kind of stared at the white background of the wiki page, and just barely kept the top left corner of the dress in my vision. I shit you not, the dress slowly turned more white and I looked down at the rest of the dress and the stripes were gold! At first it was subtle but it gradually became blatantly white and gold.
Then I looked away, and it was black and blue again.
Weird.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 279d
yea I can see the cube both ways
spinning dancer is only clockwise
dress is always white/gold
Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 277d
So what colour is this?
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 278d
I actually was able to avoid this hype and never see 1 picture until now!
Its gold.
Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 277d
I've only seen blue and black
zaugofficial@lemmings.world · 15 pts · 279d
Probably nothing.
Winning an argument would mean your opponent has enough sense to admit they were wrong, and I just don't hold 99% of the people I come across to that standard anymore.
SirSamuel@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 278d
It's pronounced gif
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 278d
This one is one of the most stupid arguments IMO, the answer is so obvious that it's impossible to defend the other side of the argument in writing without misspelling the word.
SirSamuel@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 278d
So you agree that it's pronounced gif.
I win
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
Masterclass.
SirSamuel@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 278d
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 279d
I got 2:
That there does not exist an argument one could reliably win on account of there always being someone people stupid enough to insist they are right even when confronted with absolute proof and perfect knowledge.
—————-
Any argument as long as i am willing to stop caring about facts.
pno2nr@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 278d
This parrot you sold me is dead.
ori@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 279d
Why privacy is important
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org · 9 pts · 279d
Do mean, "what controversial topic would I be correct about", or do you mean, "what can i make the other person shut up about"? Because those are different skills, and it's the reason why politicians win over the public and scientists get derided.
toomanypancakes@piefed.world · 7 pts · 279d
I had intended the former, so I'm regretting my choice of verbiage now. Oops.
YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 278d
Honestly nothing. The more I read and listen about any topic that can be debated the more unsure I am of my stance. I'm pretty sure that billionaires simply shouldn't be allowed to hoard so much money, but I'd probably fold under a multi-layered, informed rebuttal - it's more a gut feeling that i'd likely fail to articulate.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 278d
Indiana Jones could have just stayed home and Raiders Of The Lost Ark would have ended the exact same way but without him dragging that one lady through hell.
sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 278d
That is one hell of a point. Where would the Ark have ended up though?
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 278d
They’d have Top Men working on it.
sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 278d
Who?
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 278d
Top. Men.
GladiusB@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 276d
No bottoms? Sounds sus.
1984@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 278d
What do you win? No seriously.
Winning means you shut down the other person and makes him feel stupid for being wrong? Then you havent won anything. You just lost.
The entire school system is explicitly training people to be afraid of being wrong.
You only learn something when you are wrong. It should be celebrated to be wrong. But in our culture, we have made it into a ego thing. That being right means you are better, smarter, more educated. Such bullshit.
promitheas@programming.dev · 7 pts · 278d
What am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts, or what am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts AND have the other person understand and change their view/opinion on? Two different scenarios
Drbreen@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 279d
I have opinions but I'm not confident to argue about them.
tal@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 279d
"You prefer strawberry ice cream to all of chocolate, mint chip, and French vanilla."
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 278d
No, I don't! But you do seem very sure of yourself. Maybe you're right, fuck my strawberry allergy, bring on the strawberry ice cream!
palordrolap@fedia.io · 1 pts · 279d
Came here to say something similar. And also to point out that this opinion is a perfectly sound argument in and of itself, thus making it somewhat paradoxical in context.
bsit@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 279d
Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It's not. And I'd start by questioning your understanding of the word "matter".
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 279d
Qualia is the only fundamental thing
bsit@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 279d
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It's encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn't expect to see as many others here as I have.
pmw@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 279d
Matter has a specific meaning in physics but for this purpose I'd define matter as anything that exists in the world and behaves according to the rules of physics.
We can do science to determine how matter behaves and we can determine it keeps behaving that way whether any conscious being is interacting with it. That's why I think matter is more of a foundation of reality than experience. Experience can come and go but matter keeps doing its thing.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
bsit@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 277d
There's the crux of it. Problem is that science is the product of the human mind. Experience isn't just the foundation of knowledge, it has to be the foundation of everything because to say anything about anything, nonsense or science, you need experience first. This includes any idea about what matter is or isn't. We must first have an experience, and then we conceptualize it in some way - and then we try to desperately conceptualize it in a way that makes sense in the context of our previous conceptualizations. Because ironically, while some people insist on matter being prior, without realizing it they often make the human mind equally prior ("thoughts ARE the thing itself"). Bring them the map-territory problem and they get it, but it's often hard to get them to apply the same idea onto their own mind.
To be sure, science is a great and reliable way to make predictions. However, ultimate reality will always be grander than anything the mind can capture, and as such, science will never be able to distill it either. That said, one hopes, eventually science will meet this realization (and indeed some scientists have). To put it very shortly, as long as one insists on a logical continuum, one can keep asking "and what's beyond that" as logic necessarily requires a continuum of values to function. Foundation on which logic operates though, must be beyond what can be captured with logic.
Aggravationstation@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 278d
This is Lemmy. I'll give you one guess... and it ain't beans.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
Communism. Furries. Linux. Woke.
Inaminate_Carbon_Rod@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 279d
The fact that police can lie to your face in order to trick you into saying something they can label as “incriminating” leads to society having no trust for the police.
Jmsnwbrd@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 277d
Nyxias@fedia.io · 5 pts · 279d
salacious_coaster@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 279d
Nothing. I've spent my life arguing and several years arguing professionally. There are not many bigger wastes of time. I still do it, just to speak my peace, not because I'm hoping to change a bunch of minds.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 279d
I'm a woman who has slurs about her. Depending on who I'm arguing and what winning means I can't win an argument about whether it's raining as we slowly get drenched.
That said in a constructive discussion I'm really good at convincing people that comprehensive public transit is valuable, that public services are important, and that a general sense of cooperation is invaluable for society.
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 277d
Nothing, conclusively, since I am already at a disadvantage because my brain processing speed can be low at times for debates and is riddled with over thinking about how to reply, but I sure as hell could try winning an argument on why cartoons are better than live action. Or why my absolute favorite webcomic Peter & Company is something people should give a try.
toynbee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 277d
Why does the lizard speak in sarcasm format?
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 277d
If I remember correctly, I am pretty sure it's implied he might be a little mentally slow, if you catch my drift. Though I don't think they play that off for laughs in a negative way, thankfully.
I'd have to go way back to when they first introduce him and read a few more issues with him in it afterwards to verify that, though, since it's been forever since I've read some of the earlier issues.
Edit:
Looks like in the short storyline Peter and Iggy first meet, Iggy was written using with some letters flipped alongside having random lowercase letters dotted about uppercaps, so I definitely think they were going a little overboard on the mentally slow thing. It kinda looks like the sArCaSm thing is more of a way to show he's still a little slow, but in a slightly less offensive manner.
msokiovt@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 279d
By the amount of times I had moderators act bratty to me for: proving the Roman Catholic Church had control of our world since 538 AD or earlier.
olafurp@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 277d
If the argument is fair and both parties are open then I think I could win an argument that exercise is crucial for a long and healthy life.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 278d
any topic, so long as I don't need to commit to a positive claim. if someone else is willing to construct an argument, I can attack the premises.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
My argument is simple: 2+2=4.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 278d
not true for larger or smaller values of 2
hedge_lord@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 278d
Magenta is a mass delusion. It has no wavelength, it exists only because of the boundaries in our perception.
We aren't able to see the world as it is, and yet hubris is so baked into the very essence of our being that our brains invent something to deny it. That is majenta. It is an egregore of vision, something we have dreamed into being and subsequently found ourselves made hostage to. It is a stalwart guardian protecting our feeble minds from the unfiltered reality of the world.
If humanity has a god, then that god is Majenta.
And the printers want to take it from us!!
Strider@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 279d
Define winning.
I could win why there is no god but many people can not accept this since it would literally destroy them with this belief, hence reject it as self protection. That's just how humans work.
Bringing me back to the question. What even is 'winning an argument'?
(If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)
Triumph@fedia.io · 10 pts · 279d
Bitch about downvotes? Straight to downvote.
Strider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
I think you misunderstood. Go ahead!
Triumph@fedia.io · 1 pts · 278d
Don't tell me what to do.
Strider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
I like you! 🤣
boydster@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 279d
lol no I just think what you said is wrong and arrogant about being able to win that argument from even a logic perspective. Arguing the absence of lowercase-g god is a Sisyphian task if ever there was one. It reads like a teenager who binged Dawkins videos wrote it.
angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com · 6 pts · 279d
60% of Lemmy users are that teenager but they're 35 and still haven't grown out of it.
So many people here don't even accept historian consensus that Jesus was a real person
Strider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
Sure, Jesus was real. But not looking like he is mostly/often depicted 😉
Strider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
I don't care how it looks and it would take time etc sure, but I am convinced. I could go on ranting about arrogant views of neurotypicals always assuming the wildest stuff but I simply don't care.
Just rest assured this is not an edgy teenager statement.
(I'm used to being called arrogant. That comes with the specialist field I am in and also due to the double empathy issue)
pmw@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 279d
It's as simple as asking why over and over. Toddlers do it.
Strider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
What is? Me or them?
Asking is natural and usually makes you know more about the world, it's what science is built on.
pmw@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 278d
I meant you can win an argument against theism by just asking why repeatedly.
Strider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
I see, thanks for the clarification.
Geodad@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 279d
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 278d
Have you seen the heat argument?
In short, the Young Earth Creationist position is that all the plate tectonics and radiological dating issues happened because of the flood. This means the plates would have to have moved very fast, and the resulting friction creates heat. Incredible amounts of heat. Likewise, radioactive decay releases heat, too. To do all the changes necessary to do that in the space of about a year it would generate enough heat to turn the entire planet into a plasma.
This may actually be "checkmate, YEC!", at least in a sense. Not because they'll change their mind about God or anything, but because they prefer to have physical solutions if possible. It's easier to convince other people if you keep reliance on the supernatural to a minimum. But there's just no way around this one. You have to rely on the supernatural to fix it. There's just too much heat, otherwise.
Geodad@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 278d
mikenurre@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 279d
I thought that the Earth was molten rock, then cooled, then rained/flooded, and then sometime later, single cell organisms/life.
Geodad@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 279d
tal@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 279d
kagis
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-scientists-determine-early-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world/
They're saying that there isn't enough water on the surface today, but that an undetermined amount of water that used to be on the surface is now below the surface, and it's possible that that amount is sufficient that all land was at one point submerged.
Geodad@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 279d
Icytrees@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 279d
I convinced three crown attorneys that Macron did Notré Dame. That says a lot about the Canadian justice system, I just don't know what.
decended_being@midwest.social · 3 pts · 279d
That being vegan is an ethical choice compared to not being vegan.
AmidFuror@fedia.io · 3 pts · 279d
Sure, if you don't mind breeding vegetables for your own greedy enjoyment, I guess you can get on a high horse just because you don't also abuse animals.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 278d
Growing plants to eat kills fewer plants than growing plants to feed to livestock which you then eat. The "plants' rights activist" argument is invalid.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 278d
most people don't abuse animals
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 278d
they're both ethical choices. like in the trolley problem, pulling the lever or not.
chetradley@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
Curious to hear your explanation for how being non-vegan can be more ethical than being vegan. I've heard some people make interesting cases for this, by the way, but I've yet to see one that can be practically applied as an alternative to our current food system.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 278d
boy, that's not what i said.
chetradley@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
Help me out here then. You said being vegan and not being vegan are both ethical choices, like the trolley problem.
In the trolley problem, an ethical case can be made for pulling the lever or not, so I thought you were saying an ethical argument could be made for both being vegan and not being vegan. I was curious to hear your argument for the latter.
Can you elaborate on what you actually meant?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 278d
right. that's not the same as saying one is more ethical.
chetradley@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 278d
What's your ethical argument for not being vegan?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 278d
there is no ethical duty to be vegan. so not being vegan is a valid choice. the choice to be vegan is amoral.
billwashere@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 278d
Nothing
shalafi@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 278d
I can argue the uselessness of most American gun laws. I should note, a great many of the arguments rely on the fact of the 2nd Amendment and our court's historical interpretation of it.
Almost every law I see proposed either runs afoul of the 2nd, is useless, and worse, many are counterproductive.
bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 278d
Ooh thats a good one.
Can I ask what your solution is to the problem besides going door to door and raiding people's homes? Because youre never going to get the guns away from people who have them. I have yet to see a solution.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 277d
In establishing universal healthcare and universal basic income, we will do more to solve violence problems than any gun-centric approach ever could.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 279d
Nowadays nothing. Part of the problem is im not really looking to win an argument. Im looking to discuss but I have my own conclusions since at this age there is little to nothing I have not thought about at some point. When I say conclusions though that is just a current end state not some sort of this is it and could never be different thing. All the same its not like someone stating they really really think its different or this written thing in my belief is definitive fact is going to cause me to jump up and change.
GladiusB@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 276d
That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he's a jerk).
That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 277d
I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz
Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 277d
My problem with this is if I zoom in to them it sets the colour
That's zoomed in on the sock and you can't say that's not green
toynbee@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 277d
Looks teal to me.
Tracaine@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 279d
That AI is currently sentient and represents an example of a silicon based life form.
I might not be technically correct but I will absolutely shift the ontological and philosophical framing until I cannot be proven wrong.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 279d
Shirasho@lemmings.world · -2 pts · 279d
Arguments are for children and those with the mental maturity of a schoolyard bully.
Conversations are where the mature people duke it out, and the point of a conversation is not to win but to see each other on equal ground, understand the position of the other party, and come to a conclusion that benefits both parties.
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 7 pts · 279d
so... semantics?
AmidFuror@fedia.io · 2 pts · 279d
Semantics are for children. Straight up contradiction is where mature people say "No it isn't" to each other to really practice being annoying.
tal@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 279d
https://academic.oup.com/jos?login=false
"When he was eating his juice and crackers at lunchtime, Jonathan enjoyed a little light reading."
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 279d
I'm glad there are people into that, but it sounds unbearable
Shirasho@lemmings.world · 1 pts · 279d
I have no idea how you and your other up voters read what I wrote and thought "semantics".
Arguments are "I am right, you are wrong."
Conversations are "I feel I am right, and you feel you are right. Let's try to understand each other and figure out where the disconnect is and how we can meet on common ground to come to an outcome we are both happy with."
There are nuances. Arguments have an undertone of superiority. Conversations have an undertone of trying to understand the other person's perspective and realizing that if somebody has the same perspective as you then you wouldn't be in the situation to begin with.
Now, I want to make it perfectly clear that there are some things where there is no room for conversation - things where facts are being disputed.
This post is an argument since I am too lazy to engage in conversation.
ThisIsAManWhoKnowsHowToGling@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 279d