> There are prominent, respected authorities and experts on both sides of the political spectrum who disagree with you
Disagree with my about what? I think it would be helpful if you put in words the claim you think I'm making. I feel that we're talking past one another because you think I'm talking about Damore when in fact I'm responding to a hypothetical posited by another commenter.
> This is a strawman and an argument to absurdity, i.e. also irrational.
I don't pay attention to Nazi's scientific arguments for racism, anti-feminist's claims that women are incapable of certain tasks, or infomercials' claims about how amazing a product is. In each situation the signal-to-noise ratio is intractable and the arguments are not made from the position of a genuine search for truth. I'm better off encountering that evidence in other contexts presented by genuine actors, or simply never seeing it at all. Not all arguments are helpful. Some are intentionally crafted to distract and obscure.
If you think that makes me irrational, so be it. Your disagreement strikes me as hopelessly naive. I'd rather behave irrationally than waste my life chasing down the errors in arguments made by biased idiots who have no problem with lying to advance their ideology.
> Again, I feel like you didn't read my comment. Where did I suggest such a method?
Well if you have no better method then I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do. Give up on truth?
> However, you are jumping to a conclusion by assuming that he is not interested in the truth
Please read the entire thread. I am assuming this because it is posited as a hypothetical!
I fact, I do not believe this is true in Damore's case. But it is certainly true in the case of many people who are defending Damore (eg Mike Cernovich), and I don't think taking their arguments on face value is worth the time or effort. They are not interested in truth, they are interested in power, so their arguments are pointless if what you're interested in is truth.
But again, nowhere in this thread have I stated anything about Damore. I was responding to a hypothetical.
Disagree with my about what? I think it would be helpful if you put in words the claim you think I'm making. I feel that we're talking past one another because you think I'm talking about Damore when in fact I'm responding to a hypothetical posited by another commenter.
> This is a strawman and an argument to absurdity, i.e. also irrational.
I don't pay attention to Nazi's scientific arguments for racism, anti-feminist's claims that women are incapable of certain tasks, or infomercials' claims about how amazing a product is. In each situation the signal-to-noise ratio is intractable and the arguments are not made from the position of a genuine search for truth. I'm better off encountering that evidence in other contexts presented by genuine actors, or simply never seeing it at all. Not all arguments are helpful. Some are intentionally crafted to distract and obscure.
If you think that makes me irrational, so be it. Your disagreement strikes me as hopelessly naive. I'd rather behave irrationally than waste my life chasing down the errors in arguments made by biased idiots who have no problem with lying to advance their ideology.
> Again, I feel like you didn't read my comment. Where did I suggest such a method?
Well if you have no better method then I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do. Give up on truth?
> However, you are jumping to a conclusion by assuming that he is not interested in the truth
Please read the entire thread. I am assuming this because it is posited as a hypothetical!
I fact, I do not believe this is true in Damore's case. But it is certainly true in the case of many people who are defending Damore (eg Mike Cernovich), and I don't think taking their arguments on face value is worth the time or effort. They are not interested in truth, they are interested in power, so their arguments are pointless if what you're interested in is truth.
But again, nowhere in this thread have I stated anything about Damore. I was responding to a hypothetical.
> by equating him with such people
Again, I was responding to a hypothetical!!!