Nicholas Drake

I agree with avoiding drop-bar road bikes, but also recommend avoiding the typical MTB with knobbly tyres and suspension. They’re heavy, slow, the suspension is pointless, and they have more things that can break. (36 yrs cycling for transport, in 3 countries, never had a driver's licence.)

There's a typo, a "to" missing: "on 42%, compared the actual 36% they went on to secure . . . "

There's a good piece on Ayling here: rationalists.nz/articles/jou...

I have to say, "The crowd is a mix of ages and genders" is a really odd thing for people to chant.

You have a typo, just so you know: "It haven’t even announced the financing . . ."

Thanks for remembering me - I hope you're doing well.

Yes, that's me. :) My apologies, have we met?

There's a typo in the subtitle: "neoliberal ideologues has refused".

I'm so glad to hear this!

I'm so sorry to hear this, Helen.

Well, I'm sorry you HATE NICE LITTLE ANIMAL PEOPLE, Kieran.

(A bad example, Chaya Raichik is a big fan of doing just that. But only if she picks the hospitals.) 4/4

The right to private property is the right to own *some stuff*; similarly, the right to free speech is the right to say *some stuff*. No one disagrees with this; no one thinks there should be no penalty for spending your life phoning bomb threats into hospitals. 3/n

I use an analogy with the right to private property: it isn't the right to own everything. Nor is it the right to own anything: it doesn't mean you can own people or the Earth's atmosphere. 2/n

I've just been explaining this to students in the Philosophy and Public Policy course I'm TAing. People use "the right to free speech" to mean "the right to say anything," but it doesn't mean that. 1/n

So what you’re claiming there is wrong. But it doesn’t mater for the main point, because to the extent you and the cartoon are talking about the same thing, you agree that it's wrong: it’s permissible to disagree with someone without going through 1-3, not impermissible, as the cartoon says. 12/12

For example, if someone makes an argument of this form:

If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P

we can say with certainty that the argument doesn't work, even if we don't understand the premises or the conclusion. 11/12

And yet again, if the conclusion of an argument doesn't follow from the premises, you can for sure that the argument doesn't work without understanding any of the content. 10/12

And if an argument relies on a false premise, you can show that the argument isn't sound by showing that that one premise is false, even if you don’t understand the other premises or the conclusion. 9/12

Also, it's plainly false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't demonstrated that you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that it's completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12

The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12

It's false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't demonstrated that you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that the cupboard is completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12

The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12

Also, it's false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't shown you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that the cupboard is completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12

The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12

Neither of those things need have any connection to the content of the claim you might or might not understand. What you're talking about—showing you understand a position—and what the cartoon is talking about are completely different. 6/12

And you can show you understand a position without listing all you and the person presenting it agree about. (Again, if you go to any university lecture, you'll find the lecturer will spend very little time, if any, listing everything they and a person who’s view they’re explaining agree about.)5/12

E.g., you can show you understand a position without listing everything you've learned from the person holding it. (People do this all the time; go to any university lecture and you'll see academics explaining different positions without listing all they've learned from those holding them.) 4/12

What you're describing in defence of the cartoon doesn't have anything to do with it - the cartoon doesn't say anything about understanding an opponent’s position, and what it says doesn't apply to understanding positions. 3/12

Again, though, your position is the same as that of your opponents" that the cartoon is wildly wrong. It says it's *impermissible* to not go through the whole ritual. You're saying *it can be fine* to not go through the whole ritual. Something can’t be both permissible and impermissible. 2/12