Indeed, and is the image posted supposed to be about the character "wonder woman" or gal gadot in a wonder woman costume?

Hint: look at the text

ah, that makes sense.

Does that still apply if the underlying mechanism isn't understood?

I know examples of this exist already , I'm wondering if "proof of effectiveness" really means just the effectiveness in this context.

Sugar is clearly not a necessary part of nutrition. I have several relatives who live completely sugar-free who are feeling better than they ever have. No sugar intake, not even fruit, no carbs that turn into sugar. It’s the LCHF diet. So it’s a pretty good example after all.

Ketogenic and low carb diets aren't sugar free, they are very low sugar, even grains contain trace amounts of sugars.

But let's agree to disagree on that one,it's not particularly important to this general context.

Look, you’re doing your very best at making me out to be the bad guy here.

If you think that me disagreeing with your viewpoint is making you out to be a bad person there's not much i can do about that.

With your extreme stretching of what I’m saying, that “we as one people on earth” is “still a grouping” but it’s a group consisting of all people? Come on, bruh. Really? That’s just being extreme.

My stance has been that categorization and grouping are core parts so linguistic understanding and communication, so trying to make out that they are only detrimental in their usage is silly.

I keep pointing out your usage of groupings in your attempts to explain why grouping is bad, to emphasise that point.

Claiming hyperbole doesn't negate your usage of groups, large or small.

I feel like you’re up to some kind of rhetorical abuse here. It’s not sea-lioning, but almost tangential. Breaking down every single detail of what I’m saying, isolating it from its context, then generalizing it. Ignoring the major points. It’s not a pleasant way to have a discussion, friend.

If you want to make broad claims and then insist counterpoints are nitpicking, that's on you.

If you want to quote a major point you made, with all the context surrounding it, i will point to the direct counter to that.

You know what I’m saying and what you’re doing isn’t cool. Just thought I would let you know. (Also, inb4 “oh oh, it’s not pleasant when you’re WRONG?!” I can see this one coming, so please. I’m saying this knowing full well how it sounds.)

Your opinion of coolness isn't really a concern, if you don't want to engage that's fine, just say so.

Incidentally the pleasantness of a conversation isn't necessarily tied to the correctness of your (or my) position. If it's unpleasant for you feel free to disengage.

Look, I’m just calling it out like I see it, that name-calling isn’t productive,

There was no name-calling, quote the section where it happened and i will concede this point.

and I told you I’m focusing on this particular example of calling this person a Luddite and how it isn’t helpful to the conversation at all. There’s no need for grouping one individual in this case. Right? That was my point.

And i used that specific example in my response.

The message i originally replied to is here :

I don’t understand the reason or need to be calling anyone anything, even if it’s accurate. Names for groups of people who think a certain thing only serve to polarize the discourse, at best, or worse, target them with propaganda (aimed at the “other” group).

Creating a “them” is just counterproductive to the conversation and the facts.

I responded to that general statement, when you then wanted to focus on the more specific context, i responded to that.

It seems you don't want to discuss this with me, that's fine, pretending to be aggrieved about me responding in general to a specific statement when that's provably false is "not cool"

Yeah, see my other reply.

Im down for some strange, but not at the expense of anyone (or anything) else.

Honestly it's one of those "way more subjective than most people are willing to admit but we have made some lines anyway, because semi-arbitrary lines are how society functions".

That's before you even get in to full subjectivism's like what even is intelligence and who gets to decide where the thresholds are.

huh, that is not the answer i was expecting.

I would assume it'd be one of those "yes they consent but we don't deem them as possessing the intellectual capacity to be making that kind of decision"

Like it is with children.

This of course assumes the human side is at an acceptable intellectual level of development.

Or even the idea that the power dynamic in such an encounter would always skew significantly in the human direction, given that animals aren't usually (legally) considered the same as far as rights, agency and autonomy are concerned.

False equivalence aside.

So, genuine question.

Theoretically, if it was possible to obtain animal consent, you'd be cool with it ?

TL;DR;

Looks like we aren't going to agree on the definition of indiscriminate, I'm good with that, you do you.

I've put forth no opinion on anything other than word choice, as it relates to logical correctness.

Somehow you've taken that single issue and tacked on a bunch of moral, ethical and political standpoints that don't exist in my responses and then seem to have taken these imaginary attacks personally, i can't help you with that.

Being angry at imaginary positions other people haven't taken must be a hard way to live or at the very least, exhausting. It's certainly confusing from the outside.

I can't work with that level of misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) so let's just call it a day.

They killed people from literally every class available, branding anyone that disagreed with them 'enemies of liberty'. I am not going to argue on this point.

You don't need to argue, you just stated the selection criteria was "enemies of liberty". which i'm sure you'll agree is not "anybody for any reason", which is what it would need to be for it to be indiscriminate....because that's what indiscriminate means.

As i said i've no interest in forcing you to use the actual current definition of a word. If, to you, indiscriminate means "some discrimination, but not like, a lot" then you do you.

So the hoarding of wealth being transferred from noble families to merchant families doesn't seem unsuccessful to you in modern day? Replacing one group that hoards wealth with another doesn't seem relevant to the failings of the revolution?

Again, my bad, what I meant to say is I'm not sure how it relates to any of the points already raised.

None of the points raised by me (or my responses) have been about the connections, success or failure any systems or movements, nor have there been any stances taken on ethics or morality.

The relative merits and drawbacks of political systems and ideologies is interesting, but as i said i don't know enough about them to put forth anything other than superficial opinions, If you want i can put down my opinions for you, but i can't guarantee they'll hold up to scrutiny.

This is the reason I stop reading. You are an extremist and not worth speaking to.

I'm not sure how you got extremist from me commenting on logical errors in your phrasing, there have been no other positions taken by me in any of the responses I've posted, but feel free to point them out if you see one.

I use troglodyte regularly by the way

Congratulations ? it's a good word, well..i like it at least.

unless you’re talking about bloviating at which point; stop projecting, this is a common word.

I suspect it's less common than you think.

My comment was less projection than it was an inference based on your seeming inability to correctly use a (subjectively) more common word like indiscriminate. Seems like a reasonable leap to me but I'll take your word for it.

I’ll tell you when I stopped reading. It was the part where you tried to argue that the reign of terror wasn’t indiscriminate. People of all classes were sent to the guillotines, most of them the ones I listed. Robespierre himself was eventually killed. It is described as indiscriminate anywhere you read about it.

i said you were using the word indiscriminate incorrectly, there was discrimination. I wasn't refuting that people of all classes were killed.

As i said before, just because it doesn't meet the criteria they claimed ( or the criteria you think it should ) doesn't mean that there was no selection criteria.

If you want to claim a large majority of random people were rounded up with no criteria whatsoever, feel free.

I have no interest in trying to force you to use the correct application of a word, i was just pointing it out, the rest is on you.

What was the eventual result of the reign of terror? Oh, yes — capitalism overtaking feudalism regarding who gets to hoard the wealth. Oh boy, look how well that turned out!

I'm not sure how that's relevant but i don't have a formal opinion on it.

I didn’t read anything beyond this point

I know, i specifically put tags in to let you know where the big sentences were, i'm glad they helped.

but you have earned the tag ‘Bloviating Troglodyte’ so… congrats? I guess?

I appreciate you spending the time to look up some unique words, at least i know you've learnt something today.

I disagree, the consequences of how people see and interact with you based on that one vote isn't separate from any other consequences the vote has.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

True, the difference i suppose is the body count, both location and volume.

Gonna be hard to calculate those numbers though.

I don’t think it’s negative for people to be alienated from DeSantis. He’s a piece of shit.

Agreed and I'm also aware that that bias can creep in to how i present information but i think blatant attempts to try and alienate people (in general) isn't a good approach, presenting facts and well reasoned points of view will allow others to draw their own conclusions.

I don't know if this applies to everyone, but if i get the impression that someone is trying to sway me in any direction (outside of a context where that sort of behaviour is expected and accepted by both parties) then I'd be very unlikely to take their opinion at face value.

I’m not sure I understand your question. But this is the internet so I’ll answer anyway. I think bias against DeSantis is appropriate, especially in this community. But I didn’t think the article did it very well.

Agreed, it wasn't a well written article, at least by my standards.

Since I was trying to contrast against the bias in the original article I still think it was appropriate.

Also agreed, i was mainly pointing out that by leaving out mention of the potential other type of bias it could lead someone to think it was done intentionally, which ties in nicely with what you wrote next.

I feel that way because it was so overt that I fear it would never be digested by anyone on the fence.

Agreed and i find this to be a common problem, someone with an what would otherwise be a reasonable take pollutes my opinion of it by presenting it in such a way that it makes them seem unreasonable, be that inflammatory language, explicit bias, blatant omissions etc.

I prefer news articles that help people understand others.

This is harder and harder to find, not to say that any news has ever been bias free but to me it's become much harder to find anything approaching a well presented article without some sort of literary shenanigans being applied.