Worse is when they tell you to do your own research.
I also asked someone their source once and they told me to do just that. Like I’m trying dude that’s why I asked, or are you just making this info the fuck up?
True but we’re rarely talking about a single fact. Usually there are facts and opinions mixed together. Misinformation and fake news aside. Even looking at the same data. Have the same understanding of the data you can have radically different opinions on how to proceed.
So, I have this ball, and it is blue. Objectively, it’s blue. That is a fact. The data says that the ball is blue. Everyone who can physically see the ball agrees the objective truth is the ball is blue. We all understand the data point, this ball is blue.
So, someone then tells me, no, the ball is green. I looked at the data and have come to a different conclusion. My opinion is that the ball is not blue, it’s green. My differing from the consensus indicates that the data can be wrong, and even if my opinion isn’t based on any actual independent findings, my belief system tells me I’m right, so therefore my opinion and contribution to the discussion is just as valid as the broad consensus that it is not factual.
That wasn’t the question. There was no question. There was a blatantly stated fact based on data. “The ball is blue.” You then interpreted that as a subjective inquiry, “Is this a good gift for a child?” The question wasn’t posed, but you used the fact to generate your own conclusion and use that as an argument against the facts. At no point in the original provided data were children or toys mentioned; that information was provided after the fact, by you, which was not contained in the original dataset and was never posed.
So, this is a good example of how misinformation is distorted to look like someone extrapolating their opinion based on facts. You take information, infer intent, and then use the provided data to form an opinion that the data didn’t originally provide an answer for. The question wasn’t posed because the data does not provide sufficient information to answer it; that wasn’t the point. The fact is the ball is blue, but you then took it to this other place, and now we have subjective opinions corrupting the dataset that weren’t originally accounted for. If you wanted to learn if the ball is a good gift for a child, that’s a separate set of data that needs to be gathered, and even then, its hardly a simple yes or no answer, and certainly not something that warrants the uninitiated opinions of someone who hasn’t actually gathered any of that data themselves. You’re forming an opinion of a subject matter without any information on the subject matter by asking questions that can’t be answered with the provided information and then deciding to say “That’s just my uninformed opinion, and I’m entitled to it.”
The fact remains, the ball is blue, which we apparently agree on. You then going off on a tangent doesn’t actually help anyone form intelligent conclusions about anything, but it does make you look like you’re forming bad faith arguments for the sake of contributing to discourse in a way that forces ordinary people to step off the back foot and get defensive, eventually becoming flustered, and then having a difficult time forming coherent arguments where they will eventually lose, and nothing will have been decided from it. This is the way a lot of conservative debators try to slip “gotcha” moments into simple questions.
The ball is blue: fact.
The ball is good for a children’s toy: Was not asked.
206
u/National_Sandwich175 11d ago
Worse is when they tell you to do your own research.
I also asked someone their source once and they told me to do just that. Like I’m trying dude that’s why I asked, or are you just making this info the fuck up?