> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
I love how vague they all are. They might as well have said "We have a bad feeling about the world" or "We consulted an ouija board" as justifications. Do they really think a normal person reads these and accepts the reasoning?
I find that worse, it suggests something is known definitely to have happened but it's being described in an unusual way. In any case I'm not sure this is the time for such conversations.
That was my take too. There are a few points to specific people but not specific claims, or really how they're unlikely (this is all probabilities), just that they seem silly to the author.
There's something that particularly bothers me about Goodfellow's article. He condescends about crazy theories while making ridiculous assumption after ridiculous assumption while acting very authoritative about each one. Just because his theory is less "sexy" (it doesn't involve hijacking or terrorists or suicide) doesn't make it any more valid. I'm appreciative of commentary that urges a more prudent approach, not a condescending and equally implausible theory that happens to be boring.
It's not an appeal to consequences ("it would be horrifying if this were true") but to absurdity ("believing this would require us to believe all these implausible things").
There isn't enough information in the story to know what was really going on. Some possible contexts are a lot more venial than others. I think what irritated me was just the gloating tone of "we sure put one over on them"... but perhaps they didn't mean it that way.
What is the value of the poster's feelings about this, when we can rely on actual information instead? Appending "likely" to the statement is just a way to dress up a baseless opinion in the garb of objectivity.
> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
reply