= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Annoyance comments on Absolute denial for atheists - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (571)
These are excellent examples. I don't see why they're being voted down.
The second, however, is much better than the first.
I'm blaming it having successfully triggered the "absolute denial macro" in at least a few people :D.
Why's that?
Clarity. The first depends on the interpretation of "abuse", and as such I think it's very likely that many people will agree with it to some degree.
The second is much more precise; although I think it is demonstrably untrue, I expect it will draw much reflexive denial.
I'm having trouble reconciling those two statements. I'm even having trouble trying to express just why they seem... inconsistent, or inharmonious? Could you elaborate a bit?
I think he means that it can be reliably argued (demonstrated) to not be true, but many denials will be by people who cannot adequately argue the point, it will just be reflexive for them.