Now the GOP trots out dirt on Hunter Biden

[Anomalocaris]

[The Architect Of Fate]

[downbeatplumb]

Are you willing to never eat again based upon the Breatharians anecdotal evidence that eating food is unnecessary?

No - because it is an outrageous claim - 

And based on anectdotal evidence.

I have never met anyone who has starved to death - nor have I done any scientific study to that end.

However - I have heard enough anectdotal information to believe it is indeed possible to die of starvation - i.e. not eating.

Are you of the opinion that anectdotal information is NEVER worthy of consideration?

I starved to death once.


I got better.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[The Architect Of Fate]

[Angrboda]

Are you willing to never eat again based upon the Breatharians anecdotal evidence that eating food is unnecessary?

No - because it is an outrageous claim - 

And based on anectdotal evidence.

According to whom? Not the breatharians. Now if you can specify the objective traits which distinguish outrageous claims from those that are not, and what it means to say a claim is outrageous in terms that can be measured, I might change my mind. Otherwise this is just you venting your spleen and has no actual impact on the claim and whether it should be accepted. This is noncognitivism at its finest. You don't like the claim, so you call it a nasty name. If you've got something more than your opinion on this matter, to weigh against that of breatharians and their opinions, then produce it.

I have never met anyone who has starved to death - nor have I done any scientific study to that end.
However - I have heard enough anectdotal information to believe it is indeed possible to die of starvation - i.e. not eating.

It's possible to drown in the bathtub. That doesn't mean we should stop taking baths. It was possible for the Allies to lose to the Axis powers. That possibility wasn't a reason to surrender. You'll have to do better than this. And as noted, we have evidence from the breatharians that if you do it correctly, you not only won't die, but you will prosper.

Are you of the opinion that anectdotal information is NEVER worthy of consideration?

I think that's the wrong question. The question is whether anecdotal evidence is sufficient to resolve a question that is in dispute. You believe that fuckery is equally represented on both sides. I've noted that view is common among conservatives, possibly because it gives them an excuse to ignore bad acts by conservatives. Liberals, on the other hand, feel that the right far outweighs the left in terms of fuckery, and that is based upon their experience and anecdotes. You don't get to automatically assume that your interpretation of your experience is correct simply because it's yours. You are at an impasse. So something more than anecdotes and experience is required to resolve the difference between the two experiences. If all you have is anecdotes and experience, and the ubiquity of human nature, you may believe fuckery is equivalent on both sides, but that belief rests on an extremely flimsy foundation. You don't 'know' it to be true. You believe it to be true, more on faith than anything. It's nothing more than a baseless talking point. That's why I reject it if it is only based upon anecdotal evidence.

[onlinebiker]

No - because it is an outrageous claim - 

And based on anectdotal evidence.

According to whom?  Not the breatharians.  Now if you can specify the objective traits which distinguish outrageous claims from those that are not, and what it means to say a claim is outrageous in terms that can be measured, I might change my mind.  Otherwise this is just you venting your spleen and has no actual impact on the claim and whether it should be accepted.  This is noncognitivism at its finest.  You don't like the claim, so you call it a nasty name.  If you've got something more than your opinion on this matter, to weigh against that of breatharians and their opinions, then produce it.

I have never met anyone who has starved to death - nor have I done any scientific study to that end.
However - I have heard enough anectdotal information to believe it is indeed possible to die of starvation - i.e. not eating.

It's possible to drown in the bathtub.  That doesn't mean we should stop taking baths.  It was possible for the Allies to lose to the Axis powers.  That possibility wasn't a reason to surrender.  You'll have to do better than this.  And as noted, we have evidence from the breatharians that if you do it correctly, you not only won't die, but you will prosper.

Are you of the opinion that anectdotal information is NEVER worthy of consideration?

I think that's the wrong question.  The question is whether anecdotal evidence is sufficient to resolve a question that is in dispute.  You believe that fuckery is equally represented on both sides.  I've noted that view is common among conservatives, possibly because it gives them an excuse to ignore bad acts by conservatives.  Liberals, on the other hand, feel that the right far outweighs the left in terms of fuckery, and that is based upon their experience and anecdotes.  You don't get to automatically assume that your interpretation of your experience is correct simply because it's yours.  You are at an impasse.  So something more than anecdotes and experience is required to resolve the difference between the two experiences.  If all you have is anecdotes and experience, and the ubiquity of human nature, you may believe fuckery is equivalent on both sides, but that belief rests on an extremely flimsy foundation.  You don't 'know' it to be true.  You believe it to be true, more on faith than anything.  It's nothing more than a baseless talking point.  That's why I reject it if it is only based upon anecdotal evidence.

What ass backwards logic.


So tell me genius - what magic causes all the "good people" to gravitate left and all the "bad people" to go to the right?

Is it the simple magical incantation of putting a ( D ) after your name?

No obfuscation now.

Show us the magic.

[Angrboda]

According to whom?  Not the breatharians.  Now if you can specify the objective traits which distinguish outrageous claims from those that are not, and what it means to say a claim is outrageous in terms that can be measured, I might change my mind.  Otherwise this is just you venting your spleen and has no actual impact on the claim and whether it should be accepted.  This is noncognitivism at its finest.  You don't like the claim, so you call it a nasty name.  If you've got something more than your opinion on this matter, to weigh against that of breatharians and their opinions, then produce it.




It's possible to drown in the bathtub.  That doesn't mean we should stop taking baths.  It was possible for the Allies to lose to the Axis powers.  That possibility wasn't a reason to surrender.  You'll have to do better than this.  And as noted, we have evidence from the breatharians that if you do it correctly, you not only won't die, but you will prosper.



I think that's the wrong question.  The question is whether anecdotal evidence is sufficient to resolve a question that is in dispute.  You believe that fuckery is equally represented on both sides.  I've noted that view is common among conservatives, possibly because it gives them an excuse to ignore bad acts by conservatives.  Liberals, on the other hand, feel that the right far outweighs the left in terms of fuckery, and that is based upon their experience and anecdotes.  You don't get to automatically assume that your interpretation of your experience is correct simply because it's yours.  You are at an impasse.  So something more than anecdotes and experience is required to resolve the difference between the two experiences.  If all you have is anecdotes and experience, and the ubiquity of human nature, you may believe fuckery is equivalent on both sides, but that belief rests on an extremely flimsy foundation.  You don't 'know' it to be true.  You believe it to be true, more on faith than anything.  It's nothing more than a baseless talking point.  That's why I reject it if it is only based upon anecdotal evidence.

What ass backwards logic.


So tell me genius - what magic causes all the "good people" to gravitate left and all the "bad people" to go to the right?

Is it the simple magical incantation of putting a ( D ) after your name?

No obfuscation now.

Show us the magic.

We know that people on the left differ from people on the right along many metrics. That's why we have the labels of left and right, because we can rely on them predictably differing among certain measures. The question is whether this, too, is a metric along which they differ. You, apparently, believe that because they are both human, one should expect them to be the same on all metrics. If that's what you believe, then it is easily falsified, as they do systematically differ on some metrics. So you need something more than a war of anecdotes and opinions to determine whether fuckery is just such a metric. If all you've got is anecdotes and your personal opinion that they don't, that's not going to convince anyone.

ps. I'm not saying the left is all good and the right all bad; that's a strawman which I'm not going to answer.

[The Grand Nudger]

Probably the racism.

[Angrboda]