I get that Destiny has an admiration for Sam Seder and Michael Brooks. I get that these are guys that he respects and that if he’s gonna be charitable to anyone, he would be charitable to them- assuming they’re operating in good faith, assuming they’re going to just want to have a conversation about facts and conclusions coming from them, not just a discussion where you see who talks more or sounds better. And I also get that Destiny doesn’t want to get in a shouting match, doesn’t want to talk over him, etc. These are all understandable.
HOWEVER: Brooks, as could kind of been assumed by some statements he had said before (like his one to Ben Burgis), came here to win the debate and “debunk Destiny”. If Destiny’s gonna be outspoken Twitter guy, give these abrasive strongly worded tweets, he needs to follow through with that when it gets in to the real debate. It makes Destiny look really bad when he just lets Brooks talk over him, and it’s something he would NEVER let anyone on the right do. He needed to call Brooks out, he needed to stop him from gish galloping and talking over him, and he needed to do that not just to look good, but to get to a point where they could actually have an honest charitable debate on the subject. If Destiny’s not willing or not able to do that, he shouldn’t platform Brooks/have the discussion.
TL;DR: If someone comes on to debate, Destiny needs to challenge them the way he challenges everyone. The amount he let Brooks get away with was mind boggling to me, and if there’s ever a second debate, he needs to call it out when he sees Brooks engaging in this behavior. If he holds Hasan to the same standards he held the right wingers to, he needs to do the same with Michael Brooks.
This is something we have done every so often for a week or two at a time and we are again now. Thank you all
This principle is considered beyond good practice, and is basically mandatory in any type of argument or debate. It is also known as "charitable interpretation" and requires interpreting anyone's statements in their best, strongest, most rational possible interpretation. One must avoid assigning any fallacies, falsehoods, or objectionable motives to any statement when there are other possible interpretations that don't have those issues.
Why can't people do this today? It's like we're trying to find things with which we can take offense or denigrate people.
My epistemology TA explained the principle of charity in the following way:
Let’s say there’s some argument A:
- Premise
- Conclusion
You want to object to A by saying it’s invalid. This is pointless because the arguer could just add a premise:
- Premise
- If 1., then Conclusion
- Conclusion.
And, by the principle of charity, once you add this premise, and only then, can you reason about whether the premise should be added.
What he said, in general, is suppose you have some premises P, conclusion Q, and the argument is invalid. Then you could just write:
- P
- P implies Q
- So Q
What I don’t understand, though, is how this is at all helpful. If I’m saying that an argument is invalid, I’m implicitly saying that “If Premises, then Conclusion” isn’t necessarily true. That directly contradicts the premise that I’d add to make it valid, which wouldn’t win me soundness. So why is it not useful to just say “your argument is invalid, and therefore unsound,” when saying that also implicitly says, “and adding a premise to make it valid also makes it unsound.”
I need suggestions - top upvoted comment will be the charity - You heard that right if GME hits 100k a share I will record all of it on YouTube for you all to watch too. Monkey army.
Mankiw is the 11th most cited economist and the 9th most productive research economist in the world. His “Principles of Macroeconomic“ textbook is the best selling macroeconomics book in the world by far.
This man’s book writes the definitions of macroeconomics. The same way Campbell‘s book does for Biology and Halliday, Resnick, Walker do for physics.
If you think you understand inflation more than this guy, you technically can’t. His book is the reference for the first and second paragraph on the wikipedia page for “Inflation”.
EDIT: Timestamped link: https://youtu.be/HDKfdmbCuvw?t=31615
You don't have to take my word for this argument. Here are the words of Aaron Schwartz, an instrumental figure in early Reddit history:
>So I have my own justification for freedom of speech: because we can. Human freedom is important, so we should try to protect it from encroachment wherever possible. With most freedoms — freedom of motion, freedom of exchange, freedom of action — permitting them in full would cause some problems. People shouldn’t be free to walk into other people’s bedrooms, take all their stuff, and then punch the poor victims in the face. But hurling a bunch of epithets at the guy really isn’t so bad.
>Freedom of speech is one place where we can draw the line and say: all of this is acceptable. There’s no further logic to it than that; freedom of speech is not an instrumental value. Like all freedom, it’s fundamental, and the only reason we happen to single it out is because it’s more reasonable than all of the others.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/becausewecan
Or the General Manager of Twitter, 9 years ago:
>"Generally, we remain neutral as to the content because our general council and CEO like to say that we are the free speech wing of the free speech party."
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech
Or Jack Dorsey, the man himself, on the platform itself:
>Twitter stands for freedom of expression. We stand for speaking truth to power. And we stand for empowering dialogue.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/651003891153108997
They are not talking about first amendment protections. They are invoking the high ideal that communication between willing parties should not be restrained by government, individuals, or any other platform that offers to publish people's speech. It is universal in reach.
The Wikipedia page is 100% clear on this as well:
>Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
If you are arguing that Freedom of Speech somehow does not apply to corporate entities, you are wrong. You are of course free to believe otherwise, but you will remain wrong.
It is that simple. If you cannot separate the ideal that is Freedom of Speech from the Constitutional Right which protects freedom of speech, your thinking is, in this way, flawed.
People make this error both ways, b
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Edited with more direct link: https://247sports.com/Article/NCAA-working-on-new-image-and-likeness-policy-for-images-137661019/
https://twitter.com/247Sports/status/1188880177981464577?s=19
Religious corruption and hypocrisy as well as the abuse of religion for immoral or corrupt ends is always something that has to be grappled with in the Church and religious institutions. For Christians the Bible itself offers a template of principles and theological reflections when confronting corruption and immorality practised either in religious settings or in the name of religion.
(i)Confronting sexual immorality
- The Apostle Paul when speaking to the Church in Corinth says about the issue "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons-not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you"(1 Corinthians 5:9-13)
- This text from the Apostle Paul is interesting for a number of different reasons. It distinguishes corruption inside and outside the Church. It is saying that just because there is corruption and sexual immorality in other institutions doesn't give the Church an excuse to pass the buck on confronting this issue. Which can be a common response when deflecting on the issue of corruption and sexual immorality. He states as members of the Church the primary responsibility is to make judgement on the conduct of those inside the Church.
- This text has a lot of relevance for Christians confronting sexual immorality in the Church. It can manifest itself in different ways. The mildest is adultery and unfaithfulness by ministers. The worst of course are the massive cases of sexual abuse in Churches, regardless of denomination. The Apostle Paul's instructions are clear that they are to be shunned and the community has the responsibility to drive out these wicked people from its midsts. Abusers, molesters, especially when they are in positions of pastoral authority are to be driven out. The scripture also makes clear the fate of the sexually immoral as those who will burn in the Lake of fire(Rev 21).
(ii)Confronting religious hypocrisy and involvement in injustice
- The prophetic literature and the Gospels are especially instructive on th
At the heart of aikido lies something more than just martial technique or a peaceful and harmonizing philosophy. What lies beneath the surface of normal and routine aikido training is budo – the martial way. Budo is not a martial technique or a particular style; it is the essence of one’s character and a way of life. Aikido reflects this idea of budo in its core philosophy. It is not just aikido that demonstrates budo however, but all modern Japanese martial arts, all gendai budo.
http://maytt.home.blog/2021/02/05/four-principles-of-aikido/
