Thorny_Insight

@Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee

I prioritize ethics over optics even if it means facing criticism.

Sharing my honest beliefs, welcoming constructive debates, and embracing the potential for evolving viewpoints. Independent thinker navigating through conversations without allegiance to any particular side.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Thorny_Insight,

Preventing additional carbon emissions doesn’t decrease what’s already in the atmosphere. We would need some form of carbon capture even if we stopped all emissions today.

Thorny_Insight,

Lots of statements coming from the Kremlin but very little actions.

Thorny_Insight,

I’m out of the loop on this one…?

Thorny_Insight,

Ah… If I remember correctly; not being in a carwash mode caused the screen to freeze and because of a bug the hard reset took hours instead of minutes. The car was back up and running the next day and I believe the bug has been patched as well

Thorny_Insight,

Yeah but surely not to the point of getting disabled?

Thorny_Insight,

No, but I don’t really care either. It’s quite neutral. You do you.

Thorny_Insight, (edited )

Counter-argument for this would be that some deeply held ethical convictions might be difficult to argue against because they are based on fundamental values that many consider non-negotiable. These beliefs can be rational, yet difficult to counter without feeling a profound moral dissonance. “Don’t litter” would be a good example that’s really difficult to honestly argue against.

Thorny_Insight, (edited )

An asteroid or a rogue planet that we somehow failed to detect could collide with the earth, stopping its rotation. Unlikely but not impossible.

Thorny_Insight, (edited )

If an astronomer fails to come up with a single hypotethical scenario under which the sun, in fact does not rise tomorrow that would cast doubt about their actual level of understanding of astronomy, don’t you think?

Thorny_Insight,

That’s not exactly what I mean by belief and you know it.

Speaking of sincere counter-arguments…

Thorny_Insight,

Depends how one defines “winning”

It might win the audience to your side but that doesn’t automatically mean you’re right. Trump is a great example of this.

Thorny_Insight, (edited )

The point I’m trying to get at is that if you can’t lay out the counter-argument your opponent would make against your view in a way that they would agree with (steelmanning) then you’re not debating in good-faith. It doesn’t automatically mean you’re wrong - it’s possible to be right by accident or intuition too, but it does cast doubt on the quality of one’s reasoning.

This thread is a good example of that. “I believe the sun will rise tomorrow” and “I need to breathe oxygen” are not good-faith counters to my argument. They’re the opposite of that; strawmans. I’m perfectly willing to admit there are edge cases where this way of reasoning falls short (rocks are hard, fire is hot, water is wet …) but I don’t feel like that in any way refutes what is the essence of what I’m saying.

Thorny_Insight,

Good point! At this time of the year one doesn’t need to go much further north from where I live for the sun to not set all all during the night. It’s called the midnight-sun.

Thorny_Insight,

I posted it below already

Counter-argument for this would be that some deeply held ethical convictions might be difficult to argue against because they are based on fundamental values that many consider non-negotiable. These beliefs can be rational, yet difficult to counter without feeling a profound moral dissonance. “Don’t litter” would be a good example that’s really difficult to honestly argue against.

Thorny_Insight,

I perhaps worded the title a little poorly. I’m effectively arguing for steelmanning: if you have a view on a certain topic and thus disagree with the view of someone else, then for the very least you should be capable of repeating back to them their own argument in a way that they agree with. This way you’re demonstrating that you actually understood what they said rather than disagreeing with the strawman version of their argument. If one is uncapable of presenting in an honest way any such opposing views to that of their own then there’s a good likelihood that they actually haven’t considered alternative views but instead landed on it for mostly emotional and intuitive reasons.

This mostly applies to topics of which there is a significant amount of disagreement about as well as fringe views going against the mainstream. Such consideration is less important when talking about facts that there’s a broad consensus on.

An example would be a person opposing a political movement but when asked to list some of the stated goals of said movement they then fail to do so. How can one oppose something they don’t even understand?

Thorny_Insight,

Doesn’t seem to be very popular

Thorny_Insight,

I agree. Applies to piracy as well. I still partake in both - I’m just not lying to myself about what I’m doing.

I find the mental gymnastics hilarious that people perform in order to justify doing that so that they can still feel good about themselves. I think it’s quite similar to eating meat. I know the animals are suffering and it’s hurting the climate and there’s no moral justification for buying factory farmed meat but I still do because it’s so good.

When responding to a comment with multiple points, should one create a new thread (new comment) for each point, or should one make a single large comment containing individual responses to all points?

I encounter situations like this rather often where I am responding to a comment that contains many individual points/statements. I typically will respond with a single comment that contains a quote of each point that is being responded to with my response under neath the respective quote — and, sometimes, for added clarity, a...

Thorny_Insight,

I generally try and pick few of the strongest points and reply to those. It’s impossible to debate someone who replies back as you demonstrated above. The discussion gets out of hand in no time.

Thorny_Insight,

I don’t watch reels, shorts, tiktoks or any other short for videos and Loops is not an exception. I moved from Instagram to Pixelfed for the sole purpose of getting atleast some audience for my photography since Instagram wants you to post videos instead.

Thorny_Insight,

There’s always the gooner community that’s very welcoming towards new members

Thorny_Insight,

I watch 1 or 2 movies a year. The last one was Oppenheimer and I didn’t like it. That’s why I don’t watch movies; I can’t even remember the last good one I saw. In general I feel like CGI has made directors lazy but in Oppenheimer’s case they should have used it for the explosion. It was pathetic.

Thorny_Insight,

I was just thinking yesterday that for a somewhat tasteless vegetable consisting mostly of water they do have a pretty strong odor.

Thorny_Insight, (edited )

I love the smell of first time firing up a brand new toaster. I’ve only experienced this like 3 times in my life but it’s immediately recognizeable and very pleasant smell. Some protective oil on the coils I assume.

Another is suede or something similar. I can’t quite pinpoint the exact source of it but I remember my cousin’s doll house having this kind of “electric” smell to it and now few years back I bought this used leather jacket that smells quite similar.

Also the battery compartment of most remotes.

EDIT: This isn’t even answering the question but whatever

Thorny_Insight,

Recreational outrage isn’t something I’m interested in taking part at.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • anitta
  • InstantRegret
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • osvaldo12
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • JUstTest
  • tacticalgear
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • everett
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •