🇳🇱
So if the whole argument is that being able to see radicalized propaganda will make people radicalized, and thus is wrong to allow people to see it... does that work both ways.. If you are "radicalized" towards good and taking doing and treating people good to an extreme, then shouldnt the bad radicalized people turn into good radicalized people by that same exposure to good?
The logic doesnt really add up for me, but regardless this is not the reason why we have open federation as many of you know, but it does show a flaw in their logic.
@freemo Logic is "problematic".
@obi @freemo Logic always is with tribalism. It's just another religion that replaces facts with faith. I get "atheists" seriously wound up when I point out their religious behavior.
Communication allows the exchange of facts, evidence, logic, reason. For some far too lost in their religion (MAGA, Antifa, or whatever), no amount of communication will help, and you have to cut your loss to what you can afford.
But as much as possible, so many problems could be resolved if only we would just keep talking.
https://youtu.be/wbOTkDn49qI
Keep Talking, The Division Bell, Pink Floyd
I heard a great example of science as a faith argument, from none other than Michio Kaku: Science tells us that the sun is made of hydrogen, but can we really prove it? We can make observations an conclude that it is. But has anyone ever been to the sun and collect material from the sun? No, we still take our conclusions on faith. (paraphrase)
Sean Carroll in one of his books says to test any scientists convictions, ask them after they make a statement as fact to prove it. If they say they have lot of data to support it, then they are sincere as a scientist, if they say that their data "proves" it as fact, then they are religious in their science. (paraphrase)
Everything is based off of a little faith. I believe the use of logic and logical deduction is the least so, but I guess that to is based on some amount of faith.
It would be a wonderful discussion on the faith of an angstrom, the faith of a meter stick, the faith of the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant, ℎ, to be 6.626 070 15 × 10-34 when expressed in the unit J s, which is equal to kg m2 s−1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of the speed of light, 𝒸, and the hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium-133 atom, ∆ν, respectively?
This isn't really a thread suited for that, but I'd be happy to go there on a different thread.
My faith in @freemo is that if I had any evidence he was playing false, I'd drop qoto.org in a heartbeat, possibly giving up on Mastodon all together. I'm not married to this platform. I'm in the position of "I don't have to care at all about this." What could "faith" in @freemo possibly do for me? But I believe the evidence thus far presented, pending further revelation of reliable sources.
That anyone else would accept anything differently is hardly surprising to me. Disappointing, but hardly surprising.
@Romaq Let me try and find a concise explanation somewhere. It's a long story, but most of the facts of it don't matter to the situation, just the ones I mentioned.
@Romaq a full acount https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/attempted-assassination-andrew-jackson-180962526/
Ultra-concise -Under Andrew Jackson https://timelines.latimes.com/us-presidential-assassinations-and-attempts/
Sorry, I don't even know what I am writing, I've got 4 monitors open writing a stupid research paper, and I'm in the zone.
@obi ANDREW Jackson... ok, and the link gives me something to work with. :) Jackson was definitely a piece of work, but then again that covers a great deal of what has gone on and what is still going on to this day.
@Romaq Sorry, i guess that was a pretty random analogy.
@obi No worries. I'm always open to learning more about history. I've made comments about John Adams recently, and together with the image posted I hoped my intent would have been clear.
https://worldhistory.us/american-history/presidential-history/john-adams-obnoxious-and-disliked.php
@obi I am not clear to what you refer.