[PavlovsCat]

> Also consider that you have seen eleven years of data points and experiences from the point of view of a small subset of users; there could perhaps be an equivalent cache of positive datapoints which tend to be significantly less interesting to report on.

You know what a thief can be like? 99.99% of the time, they don't steal. They sleep, they brush their teeth, they do all sorts of stuff, and every 2 weeks they take all the savings from an elderly woman.

How often you do need to see someone doing that to consider them a thief? Would you really care about any positive stories after seeing what you saw?

> That's what the conclusion/premise separation is about.

You can't speak for that other person. Let them respond for themselves.

[koko775]

> You can't speak for that other person. Let them respond for themselves.

Sounds like you're more interested in competing with someone than talking about ideas.

> Would you really care about any positive stories after seeing what you saw?

...yes? Of course? I don't automatically dehumanize that hypothetical person for their deeds, whether I approve or not, or believe there should be consequences. Like, doesn't Facebook collaborate with law enforcement in tracking down predators and scammers and the like? It's not as simple as "bad. go away."

You should remember enough to make a proper argument, dude. A solid conclusion needs solid support.

[PavlovsCat]

> Sounds like you're more interested in competing with someone than talking about ideas.

No, I want to talk about the idea they expressed, not what you read into it. I can only do that with them.

> ...yes? Of course? I don't automatically dehumanize

Who's talking about dehumanizing? How is considering someone a thief dehumanizing?

edit2: Facebook is a company. It can't be dehumanized, it's not a person in the first place. People in it are responsible for what they do. Someone who fought shitty decision and then left is different than someone who, say, hires a firm to smear critics. That goes without saying as far as I'm concerned. But my thief example refers to Facebook, you see? Just because apparently my argument isn't easy to follow for everyone, doesn't mean it doesn't stand.

So, where is the dehumanization? Who is being dehumanized when someone comes to the conclusion that FB is on the whole "bad"? Because we're not appreciating all the good, supposedly? When someone is a thief, or a murderer, or a company is, then all their fantastic properties they may have is interesting for their personal friends. But not to the police, judges, or wider society. They know that the person has probably a lot of reasons for how they became that way, and nice sides to them, but they already have their own friends, it's simply completely out of scope of the subject at hand, unless it's directly related to the "crime".

> Like, doesn't Facebook collaborate with law enforcement in tracking down predators and scammers and the like?

Yes, and that thief who sometimes robs elderly women who then freeze to death outside, also has child, and he's very great with that child, and he's singing in a choir, and all sorts of great things. But you don't judge a meal by the freshest ingredients, but by the most spoiled. You judge a person by their worst deeds, and likewise a company. Again, we're talking about judgement with a capital justice here, not being friends, thinking we're better, or thinking they're evil and we're good, or any of that.

> You should remember enough to make a proper argument, dude.

I think my argument is just fine, and it even seems to get to you a little.

edit: And what post of mine are you even referring to? Where did I make an argument without examples? I was responding to someone else complaining that everyone who thinks Facebook is "evil" (let's just say bad) is operating on a premise. I was responding to that general point, I'm not decebalus1, who in turn didn't have "Facebook is evil" as their main point either.

Their main point, if you would follow the guidelines, hasn't been addressed by anyone. Their main point is the first two paragraphs, the rest is bonus. How come you are trying to teach how to "make a proper argument, dude", but didn't notice that?

Oh, and clicking buttons instead of reasoning kinda gives away who is interested in discussion, and who is interested in dehumanization and censorship.