Recent content by Hadoblado

Higs you have cancer. Take chemotherapy or else you'll die. If you then die from chemo, you wouldn't think your doctor was lying. You wouldn't have misunderstood what they meant. It wouldn't be some clever exploit of language. The doctor wants you to believe it what they say, it's in your best...

That breakdown was excellent Higs, the truth table makes sense. Unfortunately you're still wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It can be interpreted as an exclusive disjunction, but it can also be interpreted as an inclusive one. You've given reasoning (the threat on your life thing) but that's soft at best...

Merriam Webster's is more in line with how I understand it: But even then it seems a bit off by how some people use it. I do think this is a useful way to define it because it puts an emphasis on behaviour, which is something people have control of. I don't think it lacks value as a label...

From what I remember? Raging dickhead. #WillowDidNothingWrong

Yes, that is most certainly the case. The flipside of this is that politically energised bigots have enormous maneuvering room to screen themselves from criticism and to normalise their views. IMO you don't have much to worry about if you never face these accusations. Personally I find it a...

I don't think it's falsifiable. Do you get called a bigot a lot?

None of these purity tests have any basis in reality.

I'll note that you're doubling down on the derail, but I'm still going to respond so I guess we're both snagged. Maybe a mod can move us. mfw two ex mods crapping up the forum for the newbies Re: willful ignorance My outlook is also deterministic, so maybe we'll be able to arrive at the same...

I feel like you're stretching what I say so that it falls into something you can respond to with your anti-religion spiel. Out of everything I said: The green is all that you responded to. You then take nutters being inconsistent to mean priest will be consistent (tbf, that's not a huge...

Your communication seems a little scattered but your post overall has a clear direction. Insanity isn't really a term used much in psychology. I think it just means irrational by conventional standards. Thus, if you're a logician, people who are being irrational are not insane just because...

Because most science doesn't require you to be 150 IQ. Most of science isn't eureka based. Because this would be gatekeeping with no real purpose, since being a good scientist is competence-based, not IQ based. SAT scores etc. are basically IQ tests that also ensure certain competencies...

Hard/soft not binary. It's on a scale, and psychology is closer to the soft end. Wiki says a hard science is high on perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity, with a soft science being low on all these things. The rigour in psychology varies, but it's not perceived as...

You seem kinda intense, but I relate in a lot of ways. I'm similar to you in that I have a highly compartmentalised sociality, my disagreeableness is mostly 'in shadow' and I only really show it when my inhibitions are lowered or I know the people I'm talking to very well. I don't make...

Speed run: - I don't want Serac to leave over this - I don't know why Serac would leave over this - Adaire's response was inappropriate but I too am confused as to why Serac is suddenly sensitive to this stuff - Can someone please explain the call to violence claim? post where it came from...

Ah, thanks, that makes much more sense to me now. Re: OP This will probably answer your question better than our boundless speculation.