The average person knows that oil is making the world uninhabitable and still drives a car. In fact, when I go outside like you’re suggesting, there’s no more nature, I only see cars and infrastructure built for cars. So yes, the average person is this unreasonable, and going outside won’t convince me otherwise.
I agree that those are problems, and I agree that we need to invest more in public transportation, but the fact that public transportation in its current state sucks is not something I can immediately do anything about beyond voting and opting for jobs that don’t require me to physically commute. If I want to go to a friend’s house, or to a grocery store that’s too far for me to walk, I still have no choice but to drive.
I still don’t see what this has to do with me or the person you originally replied to (we’re two different people) trying to convince anyone that anyone who disagrees with them is a troll.
Well, you think the person described in the story is a troll because nobody is that unreasonable, right? You’re wrong. People really are that unreasonable. Not everyone whose words are incompatible with their actions is faking to try and trick you. Most people, like you, have some kind of made up excuse why it’s okay for them to act contrary to their own beliefs. Like the state of public transport. I’m sure the person in the story has an excuse just like yours.
No one is so totally oblivious that they refuse to change their mind about whether or not minds can be changed in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. For that matter most people do not completely discount evidence that disagrees with their viewpoint.
I strongly disagree with your claim that anyone who tells you not to talk to someone who refuses to change their mind in the face of ample evidence is probably a troll, and that even if they’re not, they’re not worth talking to, is part of the shadow government trying to drive the left and the right apart.
For that matter I really don’t know how anyone can seriously argue for political unity now that Trump is quoting Mussolini.
The original argument was about whether people change their minds in the face of evidence. The evidence says people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. The person you’re saying is a troll refused to change their mind in the face of evidence. You think they should have changed their mind in the face of evidence, because you believe that people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. Correct?
I agree that most people would not change their minds in the heat of an emotional argument. I also believe that despite this it is the duty of every citizen with a brain to change their minds when presented with new evidence. I also believe that no one could miss the irony in the original post unless they were doing so intentionally.
Anyway, you were talking about driving the left and the right apart.
Partisan realists don’t want to have more disagreements with people who have different politics, they want to pretend there are no disagreements and that people with different politics don’t exist. They call anyone they disagree with a troll who’s just lying that they disagree
Okay. I’m not yet fully convinced of the existence of such people, but I can all but guarantee there aren’t any in this thread. There’s a big difference between that and saying you should stop arguing with someone who clearly isn’t interested in what you have to say.
Also, no one said trolls were lying about what they believed. Many trolls like to hide behind “I’m joking” as an excuse for believing things that are not acceptable to believe in modern society.
It’s the definition of a troll. Being disingenuous in order to upset others. If that’s not what you mean, don’t call someone a troll.
I do believe trolls exist, and in my opinion the world’s greatest troll is Ken M, who makes fun of people that were going to get upset anyway, and who never punches down. But I would rather use Hanlon’s razor in most situations.
The average person knows that oil is making the world uninhabitable and still drives a car. In fact, when I go outside like you’re suggesting, there’s no more nature, I only see cars and infrastructure built for cars. So yes, the average person is this unreasonable, and going outside won’t convince me otherwise.
I agree that those are problems, and I agree that we need to invest more in public transportation, but the fact that public transportation in its current state sucks is not something I can immediately do anything about beyond voting and opting for jobs that don’t require me to physically commute. If I want to go to a friend’s house, or to a grocery store that’s too far for me to walk, I still have no choice but to drive.
I still don’t see what this has to do with me or the person you originally replied to (we’re two different people) trying to convince anyone that anyone who disagrees with them is a troll.
Well, you think the person described in the story is a troll because nobody is that unreasonable, right? You’re wrong. People really are that unreasonable. Not everyone whose words are incompatible with their actions is faking to try and trick you. Most people, like you, have some kind of made up excuse why it’s okay for them to act contrary to their own beliefs. Like the state of public transport. I’m sure the person in the story has an excuse just like yours.
No one is so totally oblivious that they refuse to change their mind about whether or not minds can be changed in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. For that matter most people do not completely discount evidence that disagrees with their viewpoint.
I strongly disagree with your claim that anyone who tells you not to talk to someone who refuses to change their mind in the face of ample evidence is probably a troll, and that even if they’re not, they’re not worth talking to, is part of the shadow government trying to drive the left and the right apart.
For that matter I really don’t know how anyone can seriously argue for political unity now that Trump is quoting Mussolini.
The original argument was about whether people change their minds in the face of evidence. The evidence says people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. The person you’re saying is a troll refused to change their mind in the face of evidence. You think they should have changed their mind in the face of evidence, because you believe that people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. Correct?
I agree that most people would not change their minds in the heat of an emotional argument. I also believe that despite this it is the duty of every citizen with a brain to change their minds when presented with new evidence. I also believe that no one could miss the irony in the original post unless they were doing so intentionally.
Anyway, you were talking about driving the left and the right apart.
Partisan realists don’t want to have more disagreements with people who have different politics, they want to pretend there are no disagreements and that people with different politics don’t exist. They call anyone they disagree with a troll who’s just lying that they disagree
Okay. I’m not yet fully convinced of the existence of such people, but I can all but guarantee there aren’t any in this thread. There’s a big difference between that and saying you should stop arguing with someone who clearly isn’t interested in what you have to say.
Also, no one said trolls were lying about what they believed. Many trolls like to hide behind “I’m joking” as an excuse for believing things that are not acceptable to believe in modern society.
It’s the definition of a troll. Being disingenuous in order to upset others. If that’s not what you mean, don’t call someone a troll.
I do believe trolls exist, and in my opinion the world’s greatest troll is Ken M, who makes fun of people that were going to get upset anyway, and who never punches down. But I would rather use Hanlon’s razor in most situations.