So the reason I care is that every half-truth is a chink in the armor of the overall cause. Social and racial justice are incredibly important causes. When people make bold statements that aren’t entirely factual, the opposition points to them in order to discredit the cause as a whole. I want to persuade the persuadable by being factually correct whenever possible.
You know what? I can totally respect that stance. But I also think it’s important not to miss the forest through the trees on issues when fact checking. For smaller details that don’t effect the larger issue or play by play events it can otherwise distract from the overall importance of the issue.
Whether that be through unscrupulous individuals who would run away with the small incorrect detail and blow it up more than they should and downplay the whole event because of it, (think Alex Jones types). Or just people who get confused easily by over valuing and conflating series of events
Look, I tend to believe that "common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen.”[1] People perceive the world differently from one another, and have different lived experiences. This is especially true for neurodivergent people when compared to people we might think of as neurotypical.
“Breonna Taylor Was Asleep” is a factually inaccurate statement. The specifics may be a non-issue for you, but they might be a major holdup for someone who thinks differently.
Is it though? An appeal to common sense has been used to justify any number of horrors historically. It depends heavily on the culture you are in.
Debate is most certainly used to persuade and test the strength of an argument. In debate, however, common sense is sometimes used in place of logical reasoning for things the speaker believes should simply be understood.
So the reason I care is that every half-truth is a chink in the armor of the overall cause. Social and racial justice are incredibly important causes. When people make bold statements that aren’t entirely factual, the opposition points to them in order to discredit the cause as a whole. I want to persuade the persuadable by being factually correct whenever possible.
I do understand your overall point though.
You know what? I can totally respect that stance. But I also think it’s important not to miss the forest through the trees on issues when fact checking. For smaller details that don’t effect the larger issue or play by play events it can otherwise distract from the overall importance of the issue.
Whether that be through unscrupulous individuals who would run away with the small incorrect detail and blow it up more than they should and downplay the whole event because of it, (think Alex Jones types). Or just people who get confused easily by over valuing and conflating series of events
Removed by mod
Look, I tend to believe that "common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen.”[1] People perceive the world differently from one another, and have different lived experiences. This is especially true for neurodivergent people when compared to people we might think of as neurotypical.
“Breonna Taylor Was Asleep” is a factually inaccurate statement. The specifics may be a non-issue for you, but they might be a major holdup for someone who thinks differently.
Removed by mod
Is it though? An appeal to common sense has been used to justify any number of horrors historically. It depends heavily on the culture you are in.
Debate is most certainly used to persuade and test the strength of an argument. In debate, however, common sense is sometimes used in place of logical reasoning for things the speaker believes should simply be understood.
Removed by mod
Let’s back up for a second.
Can you definite what you understand “common sense” to be.
Also, do you think “common sense” varies between cultures?