Nex Benedict died one day after a fight in a school bathroom. Their mother Sue Benedict tells Bevan Hurley that the gender fluid teenager endured more than a year of abuse simply for being who they were
Chiming in here to say that generally you need proof of positive claims in a debate, rather than proof of negative claims.
I’m not asking him to prove a negative, I’m asking him to prove his firm assertion that Jesus did not exist.
My understanding is there’s no conclusive evidence either way, so when somebody states either one of the extremes, that he absolutely existed, or he absolutely did not exist, I want to know where their proof is coming from that allows him to say such a thing with such certainty, because I know the evidence is inconclusive (at least at the last time I took a look into it).
In any case, have fun with your debate.
I’ve actually blocked him at this point, so there won’t be any further debate. My first block on Lemmy actually, I try very hard never to do that.
Yeah I kinda brain farted on positive vs negative claims there, it always confuses me as to whether or not you can make a positive claim on a statement about how something doesn’t exist, and it’s more about, the most reasonable thing is to not really know for sure one way or another, and you’re actually making the negative claim against certainty. I dunno, confuses me still. On the rank, it would still make more sense to argue for a lack of a thing than for existence of a thing, right? Sort of along the lines of the raven paradox?
and nah, I had to do that earlier to a dickhead I was arguing with, very obviously bad faith, only cherry picked specific pieces of my arguments, you know how it goes.
tried very hard not to as well, but damn, that motherfucker kinda pissed me off, ngl. I dunno. I find I have a much higher hit rate on this website than any other, in terms of positive engagements, right, but because of that, I would also engage with people more here than on other platforms, where I might instead put in much less effort. so it’s sort of a double edged sword, because people can much more easily waste my time. I think I’ve just come to the conclusion that I’m writing for myself as a creative exercise, beholden to my own standards, more than I’m writing specifically for them, you know?
It’s best not to overthink it, as it seems you are doing (no offense meant).
If someone says ‘a’ is true, you can ask them how do you know ‘a’ is true, and if they just say oh because I know, then you can push further because that’s just a bullshit answer. Especially so if you take the comment in relation to the whole conversation you’re having with them, and the level of intellectual honesty they have in conversing with you.
As far as conversations go here on Lemmy, I’m not finding good quality of conversation here on Lemmy at all, and I’m seriously considered leaving and going back to Reddit because of that, unfortunately.
From the quality of new posts people are making to the arguments that end up happening right away inside of each one of them, it actually seems a lot worse than it was on Reddit. Good to hear it’s working out well for you though.
yeah, I’ve probably fried my brain thinking too hard about it fs, just in general.
A lot of it is up to figuring out who’s going to be the best person to engage with, which I think is pretty easily done just by looking at post length. Longer posts require higher effort, = this person will be more likely to engage in good faith. Trolls tend to leave little quips, rather than large spiels.
Also, lemmy, just like reddit, also tends to be, if not an echo chamber, then certainly, a place where you can see who’s popular, and who’s unpopular. Who holds the most mainstream “lemmy” opinion. I think it’s generally better a lot of the time to engage with people who get a lot of downvotes, but seem to be acting in good faith otherwise, cause they have interesting opinions, and I think interrogating them is a good way to help them build their case, when otherwise it would just kinda be left to shit a lot of the time. The exception are political posts where you’re going to have to uproot someone’s whole worldview in order to make them see the light.
Weirdly counterintuitive, right, because you would expect most people to be more combative after going through the ringer of downvote oblivion, but it has been my experience that if you show them a modicum of sympathy they will respond to you oftentimes much better than a more popularly opinioned user might. I don’t really know why this is, maybe it’s because people perceive themselves to have some amount of power, or maybe it’s just because users are more likely to respond to, and upvote, short quips, as we’ve seen kind of infect reddit, and obviously those people are not worth bothering 90% of the time.
I dunno, that’s the only thing that strikes me maybe about your post pattern in this thread specifically, to do a better psychic reading I’d have to look at your other posts and I’m too lazy to do that rn. Hope any of what I said helps, though.
I’m not asking him to prove a negative, I’m asking him to prove his firm assertion that Jesus did not exist.
My understanding is there’s no conclusive evidence either way, so when somebody states either one of the extremes, that he absolutely existed, or he absolutely did not exist, I want to know where their proof is coming from that allows him to say such a thing with such certainty, because I know the evidence is inconclusive (at least at the last time I took a look into it).
I’ve actually blocked him at this point, so there won’t be any further debate. My first block on Lemmy actually, I try very hard never to do that.
Yeah I kinda brain farted on positive vs negative claims there, it always confuses me as to whether or not you can make a positive claim on a statement about how something doesn’t exist, and it’s more about, the most reasonable thing is to not really know for sure one way or another, and you’re actually making the negative claim against certainty. I dunno, confuses me still. On the rank, it would still make more sense to argue for a lack of a thing than for existence of a thing, right? Sort of along the lines of the raven paradox?
and nah, I had to do that earlier to a dickhead I was arguing with, very obviously bad faith, only cherry picked specific pieces of my arguments, you know how it goes.
tried very hard not to as well, but damn, that motherfucker kinda pissed me off, ngl. I dunno. I find I have a much higher hit rate on this website than any other, in terms of positive engagements, right, but because of that, I would also engage with people more here than on other platforms, where I might instead put in much less effort. so it’s sort of a double edged sword, because people can much more easily waste my time. I think I’ve just come to the conclusion that I’m writing for myself as a creative exercise, beholden to my own standards, more than I’m writing specifically for them, you know?
at least, that mentality helps me.
It’s best not to overthink it, as it seems you are doing (no offense meant).
If someone says ‘a’ is true, you can ask them how do you know ‘a’ is true, and if they just say oh because I know, then you can push further because that’s just a bullshit answer. Especially so if you take the comment in relation to the whole conversation you’re having with them, and the level of intellectual honesty they have in conversing with you.
As far as conversations go here on Lemmy, I’m not finding good quality of conversation here on Lemmy at all, and I’m seriously considered leaving and going back to Reddit because of that, unfortunately.
From the quality of new posts people are making to the arguments that end up happening right away inside of each one of them, it actually seems a lot worse than it was on Reddit. Good to hear it’s working out well for you though.
yeah, I’ve probably fried my brain thinking too hard about it fs, just in general.
A lot of it is up to figuring out who’s going to be the best person to engage with, which I think is pretty easily done just by looking at post length. Longer posts require higher effort, = this person will be more likely to engage in good faith. Trolls tend to leave little quips, rather than large spiels.
Also, lemmy, just like reddit, also tends to be, if not an echo chamber, then certainly, a place where you can see who’s popular, and who’s unpopular. Who holds the most mainstream “lemmy” opinion. I think it’s generally better a lot of the time to engage with people who get a lot of downvotes, but seem to be acting in good faith otherwise, cause they have interesting opinions, and I think interrogating them is a good way to help them build their case, when otherwise it would just kinda be left to shit a lot of the time. The exception are political posts where you’re going to have to uproot someone’s whole worldview in order to make them see the light.
Weirdly counterintuitive, right, because you would expect most people to be more combative after going through the ringer of downvote oblivion, but it has been my experience that if you show them a modicum of sympathy they will respond to you oftentimes much better than a more popularly opinioned user might. I don’t really know why this is, maybe it’s because people perceive themselves to have some amount of power, or maybe it’s just because users are more likely to respond to, and upvote, short quips, as we’ve seen kind of infect reddit, and obviously those people are not worth bothering 90% of the time.
I dunno, that’s the only thing that strikes me maybe about your post pattern in this thread specifically, to do a better psychic reading I’d have to look at your other posts and I’m too lazy to do that rn. Hope any of what I said helps, though.
Well I truly appreciate the conversation and the civility, thank you for that.