Current Events > I'm disappointed with how few people aren't politically binary.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I dunno, I first encountered the argument he's making in an intro to logic class in a section about the history of math and whether/to what extent it's empirical or theoretical.

Still Im having a little trouble understanding what makes this argument left wing whether or not it's correct. I mean this person obviously knows more about the subject than you or I.

I'm a little more concerned about the kind of discourse this sort of topic fosters than I am right or left wingers.

---

Let me also say I am in no way shocked by the people who came out to goad me into argument and who also defend 2+2=5.

I'm going to nope out of this topic for a while, in the hopes that people looking to respond to the op can do so without getting sucked into a tornado of dumb.

---

It's not even about it being a metaphor. It's just bringing nuance to the subject. He's saying that when it comes to math, it's important to understand exactly what is being talked about and described. Because if two people don't have the same definitions, they can come up with different answers.
---

joe40001 posted...

Let me also say I am in no way shocked by the people who came out to goad me into argument and who also defend 2+2=5.

I'm going to nope out of this topic for a while, in the hopes that people looking to respond to the op can do so without getting sucked into a tornado of dumb.

You're such a tool, dude. This is just pathetic. "This is how they use math in stem school" joe lectures the PhD in bioinformatics or whatever the fuck.

Just notice how hot you got over literally nothing and had to shut down the discourse without ever even addressing the argument

---

Antifar posted...

Oh for sure man

---

FL81 posted...

Is it really binary if you listed three categories?

lol

---

or, hear me out, using addition as a metaphor for procreation is different than a grade schooler combining groups of objects.

no one is saying a group of two objects getting combined with another group of two objects will somehow magically become a group of five objects. (and, in the incredibly unlikely case of someone actually claiming that, i posit that they're doing it in an "miracle of god" sense, and even less likely to be in the group you're assigning them.)

what you are doing it textbook strawmanning. stop it. there's been a run on them over the last few years and they're getting quite scarce.

---

Sane people don't feel the need to constantly talk politics and make it central to their personal identity

---

joe40001 posted...

I'd say the percentages might be comparable for the 2 sides.

Like 70 million people voted for Trump, do you think "math is racist" is as widespread (to say nothing of impactful) a view?

---

joe40001 posted...

ChocoboMogALT: "Joe is so stupid, he would defend something as obviously wrong as 2+2=5"
*Posts a link to somebody defending 2+2=5*
ChocoboMogALT: "Well, you see why that's actually right though is..."

Let me know if the irony ever catches up to you.

That's not what I said, nor what I implied. I'm going to go ahead and quote myself:

ChocoboMogALT posted...

Honestly, it's amazing how often you show you have no education on a topic yet complete conviction that you're correct. Even when I sort of agree with something you say, it's impossible agree because of how poorly you make your point. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not because of how hard you have to go out of your way to come up with some of your awful takes. But then you refuse to engage in any sort of conversation (just like "both sides") and refuse to listen to any sort of facts in topic after topic.

It's ok to have stances that fit both sides of the pendulum. It's not ok to put your head in the sand in regards to a history of racism, economic facts, or the harm you're causing with your beliefs.

So, yeah. What was the point of the article. Who wrote it? What was it about? Who was the audience? What does it actually say?
I'm going to keep typing, but seriously, answer those questions.
Again, you ignore context and ignore facts. What's most surprising isn't that you're defending 2+2=4, but that you're not taking a relativist approach for once (when maybe it's correct).

Non-sequitur: I thought for sure going into that article would be an IT joke, not a small point about data abstraction.

---