| General > General Technical Chat |
| Dilbert loses newspapers, publishers, distributor, and possibly its website |
| << < (156/222) > >> |
| ebastler:
James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get? Edit, to elaborate: "I question whether a law banning X should exist." ~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist." ~ "I think X should be legal." ~ "I am advocating for X." See? |
| floobydust:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 13, 2023, 10:52:13 pm ---Looks like he has 109k followers on Locals. Don't know how many paid though. Following (unpaid) with my existing Locals account I can see his first Dilbert Reborn strip. He recently gave permission for people to use but but not actively republish the strip, so here is the first strip, 1 of 3, I'll just post the first one. Dilbert dies and was cremated. You guessed it, in the next one he's reborn from the dumpster. --- End quote --- Dave, thanks for giving some continuity about the comic strip, post attack. I dislike seeing Dilbert go behind a paywall and think it's not practical. I've enjoyed Dilbert for decades, many good laughs and I don't have to agree with all of Mr. Adams personal politics, like water off a duck's back. More important is social media distorting what he says and his cheeseball one man syndication, Wiki deleting Dilbert references to cover their ass. Today, the utterance of one single word can destroy your career, reputation, image - poof just like that. At least Chris Rock can still do standup, offend many people for the laughs. There is a new mental illness where people feel powerful being politically correct, and thrive on policing others, calling up the social media brigade and cancelling them. It's amazing how little it takes to derail a thread, trash the S/N ratio, and then it falls to "cancel the thread" about being cancelled :-DD |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: ebastler on March 14, 2023, 09:59:16 pm ---James, this is not about remembering the exact wording. "Questioning X" and "questioning whether a law that bans X should exist" are essentially opposites -- which apparently you still don't get? Edit, to elaborate: "I question whether a law banning X should exist." ~ "I don't think a law banning X should exist." ~ "I think X should be legal." ~ "I am advocating for X." See? --- End quote --- No I don't see. That is a logical fallacy, it isn't the way I think at all. I had no idea that some people actually thought that way, it has been eye opening. Somebody else posted a great example, marijuana. I question whether a law banning marijuana should exist, in my case I do actually think marijuana should be legal, but I absolutely am not advocating for it. Same with cigarettes, I hate cigarettes, I think they're disgusting, I absolutely do not think anyone should smoke cigarettes and most certainly am not advocating for them, I still don't think cigarettes should be illegal. It's a personal choice, if someone wishes to make that choice I'm not going to try to force them. Same with junkfood. I think people should try to eat healthy, I don't think they should over-indulge in fast food and other junk, but I certainly don't think McDonalds should be outlawed. There are many, many, many things that I dislike, disagree with, would never do, think should be broadly discouraged etc that I don't think should be against the law. What part of this do you not understand? Some laws that I question I don't necessarily think shouldn't exist, I just question them, I think it should be discussed to see if maybe there is a more effective alternative. I listed a few examples earlier in this thread if you care to look. There seems to be an inability to see the difference between questioning (testing, discussing) something and having a firm opinion that it is false. That is difficult for me to comprehend because it is so counter to how I think, and the difference is so obvious and clear cut. I think this is perhaps a significant part of the root of this whole culture war, people who have these drastically different logical short circuits. If in their mind questioning something is literally equal to advocating for its opposite then I can see where some of these battles come from. Hopefully you can accept that many(most?) people simply do not jump to that conclusion. |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: ebastler on March 14, 2023, 11:05:13 pm ---But you no longer think that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", right? Glad we got at least to that little eye-opener. --- End quote --- I'm not sure what you're saying, I never have said that "I don't think there should be a law banning X" means the same as "I question X", nothing has changed. "I question whether there should be a law banning X" absolutely does not equal "I advocate X", not at all. "Questioning" something is not the same as saying "I think something is false" again two different things. |
| ebastler:
You are evading the prior point, James. You had mocked the earlier post by Kim C. based on your claim that he supposedly equaled "questioning X" with "advocating X" -- which would indeed be contradictory. But you had either read is original post sloppily, or not understood it, since Kim actually started from a statement saying the opposite. You certainly misquoted him. I take it that you have realized by now that "questioning whether a law against X should exist" is not the same at all as "questioning X". I am glad we have achieved at least this little eye-opener. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |