The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[J.Quondam]

"You must do this. You can't do that. That is wrong. No one ever does this.... But I'm not telling you how to do it! Really, I'm not."

 

[CleverNickName]

One of the most important topics I learned in my "Intro to Psychology" class at university was how to distinguish Knowledge from Belief.

 

[overgeeked]

One of the most important topics I learned in my "Intro to Psychology" class at university was how to distinguish Knowledge from Belief.

In my philosophy 101 it was all about knowledge as justified true belief. For something to be knowledge you had to believe it, it had to be true in that it matched external reality, and you have to justify your belief with some evidence for believing it to be so.

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Scribe]

Down this path, lies moderation.

 

[JAMUMU]

I mean, it'd be great if the Coca-Cola Company put the cocaine back into cans of Coke, but it just wouldn't be good optics.

 

[payn]

I mean, it'd be great if the Coca-Cola Company put the cocaine back into cans of Coke, but it just wouldn't be good optics.

 

[Guest 7034872]

You know what I like to do when I'm struggling not to respond to people's posts but just can't bring myself to shut up and walk away? I like to post gifs of cats/dogs/tarantulas/ferrets/etc.

It's cathartic, but also a reminder to myself that I had a reason for not replying.

 

[overgeeked]

Wait...so My Little Pony can handle sensitive topics but D&D can't...and they're both owned by Hasbro.

I'm not sure how to feel about that.

 

[Guest 7034872]

In my philosophy 101 it was all about knowledge as justified true belief. For something to be knowledge you had to believe it, it had to be true in that it matched external reality, and you have to justify your belief with some evidence for believing it to be so.

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Under the classical epistemological theories, yes, though more recent ones have either added even more to evidential justification or else moved away from it into "warrant" or similar terms, where it's about the form of support doing properly good work for tying to the truth of the belief to its role as ground for or cause of the belief's existence.

Stanford Encyclopedia's Entry on "Reliabilism"

 

[Mad_Jack]

A difference that makes no difference. If you triggered the change, you did.

But how you get to the goal is just as important as getting there. Convincing them to change their mind through eloquent discourse and honest discussion is great. Continually hammering away at them until you wear them down is not.
I manipulate people (including my friends) into changing their minds or making certain choices all the time (usually for their own good), but that doesn't necessarily make it right.