Yes, because clearly talking about how much a belief should propagate based on a given piece of evidence is only a semantics argument and has nothing at all to do with concrete things like how to attain accurate beliefs.
To some people, being able to think clearly is related to being able to keep track of their thoughts in a precise fashion, so they try and pin down all the tiny details and nuances of their language. To other people, who have vague and undefined thoughts, can't see what all this fuss is about, what's the point of being precise when all of your thoughts look the same to you?
There's a difference between "Zimmerman has a 90% chance that he did something I would personally disapprove of, so he has 90% guilt" versus "Zimmerman did actions X, Y and Z and I know it because of A B and C" and I genuinely don't know how to demonstrate the difference if you don't know it.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
SlymDayspring posted... It going to court will literally be people judging zimmerman based on the evidence, which is literally what people are doing that you are so upset about.
It's literally their job to judge and that's what we'll have to settle for. But people on the internet with no stake in the matter? Not their place to judge.
SlymDayspring posted... It is literally not your job to post on this message board either so I guess you better stop
He's talking about possible consequences for the jury though; people on the internet can signal their righteousness and justice with very little cost so that other people think that they're moral and have uncompromising values. The jury can't, because there will be other people to judge their chain of reasoning even indirectly and in some sense they're responsible for a correct judgment (I have no idea what sense though!)
I think what he's trying to say is that most internet discourse on this topic is of relatively low quality because of those factors.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
ToukaOone posted... SlymDayspring posted... It is literally not your job to post on this message board either so I guess you better stop
He's talking about possible consequences for the jury though; people on the internet can signal their righteousness and justice with very little cost so that other people think that they're moral and have uncompromising values. The jury can't, because there will be other people to judge their chain of reasoning even indirectly and in some sense they're responsible for a correct judgment (I have no idea what sense though!)
I think what he's trying to say is that most internet discourse on this topic is of relatively low quality because of those factors.
Yeah, this exactly. I saw someone on facebook call Zimmerman a murderer and say he needed to be locked up. I was having a stressful day at work and that annoyed me, hence this topic.
Theon_Greyjoy posted... Yeah, this exactly. I saw someone on facebook call Zimmerman a murderer and say he needed to be locked up. I was having a stressful day at work and that annoyed me, hence this topic.
Literally annoyed because someone posted something on facebook.
--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch
redrocket posted... Theon_Greyjoy posted... Yeah, this exactly. I saw someone on facebook call Zimmerman a murderer and say he needed to be locked up. I was having a stressful day at work and that annoyed me, hence this topic.
Literally annoyed because someone posted something on facebook.
Literally yes. If you don't have any annoying facebook friends I envy you.
Liquid Wind posted... I saw someone on facebook call Zimmerman a murderer
this is usually what you are classified as when you see someone walking down the street minding their own business, you go out of your way to follow them with a lethal weapon, and they wind up dead. frankly it doesn't even matter if martin initiated the actual violence, it's not self defense when you instigate confrontation.
I saw someone on facebook call Zimmerman a murderer
this is usually what you are classified as when you see someone walking down the street minding their own business, you go out of your way to follow them with a lethal weapon, and they wind up dead. frankly it doesn't even matter if martin initiated the actual violence, it's not self defense when you instigate confrontation.
except if we're talking about TES of course, but no trash talking people into throwing the first punch and then murdering them for free IRL
Now that's a person you can't say anything to convince. He's made up his mind and he's going to show the world how firm is convictions are!
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
There's no problem with forming an opinion based on limited information, as long as you're aware of the limitations of your data and you're willing to change your opinion if new data emerges. It's only a problem if you start thinking the case is closed before most of the details have emerged. (The Facebook person might fall into this category.)
Anyway. If I understand newbie, what he's saying is that the case against Zimmerman isn't as strong as it seems. - It's possible that his story is inconsistent because human memory sucks. - It's also possible that he's lying about certain collateral details to make himself look better, but that doesn't mean that he's lying about everything. He could still be not guilty. The whole "lynch all liars" mentality doesn't really work in real life.
So he's not saying "don't form opinions until the very end." He's saying, specifically, that the guy's not as shady as a lot of people are making him out to be. It's possible, given the data we have, that he was acting out of a misguided sense of duty as a neighborhood watch member, instead of being a closet racist with an intent to murder.
-- another place and time, without a great divide, and we could be flying deadly high
When you're in a situation like that, events happen so quickly they're practically a blur. I don't think Zimmerman's lying about that, but I do think the guy is responsible for bad judgement. He should have just waited for the cops to arrive, and approaching someone you feel is suspicious with a gun when you aren't an officer isn't smart.(Granted there are exceptions, but still.)
Again, I never said he had intent to murder or was a closet racist or anything. I wasn't even saying what I believe, personally. I was simply saying how the evidence is looking, and why people are quick to judge.
newbie was going off on a tangent arguing about how he thinks things SHOULD be in a perfect world where people can look at every single piece of evidence and have the time to weigh on every possibility before forming an opinion. I'm not even disagreeing with his stance. I just wasn't going to debate it any further, because the fact of the matter is that it ISN'T like that, and the initial debate was, basically... Should people be allowed to judge based on what they think they know. TC is basically going "People on the internet can't say anything." I'm saying... People are going to have opinions based on what they know, and you have no right to tell them to stop.
-- SEP Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996 Step FOUR! Get Paid! http://img.imgcake.com/stevenashgifpu.gif
I'm saying... People are going to have opinions based on what they know, and you have no right to tell them to stop.
Yeah. Well, I agree with you there. (with the caveat that, if people are completely unwilling to adapt their views as new information emerges, others should tell them to stop being bad)
-- another place and time, without a great divide, and we could be flying deadly high