People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about controversial topics

Re:People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about... by 1337biz on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @12:38PM (#18442882)

Thanks for understanding my point. Hitler's dog loved him because the dog cared about food and getting petted. The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog. Just caring about one thing and not caring about the other does not make the dog a Nazi. Even more ridiculous, in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay, Nazi dogs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about... by Dylan16807 on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @02:54PM (#18444285)

> caring about one thing and not caring about the other

> in the logic of OP, all other dogs who think this is behavior is okay

No. The OP did not talk about approval. They talked about specifically thinking the candidate is racist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about... by beat on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @04:53PM (#18445265)

As the OP, the logic goes like this... "I'm a racist. And I like Candidate X because I believe Candidate X is also a racist, based on the things Candidate X says".

Now, it's possible that Candidate X is not a racist. But if the racists are confused about it, maybe Candidate X needs to be more clear. Because the racists look at Candidate Y and "We hate Candidate Y, because they're opposed to our beliefs". No chance of misunderstandings there.

Now, Candidate X will certainly have other supporters saying "We don't believe Candidate X is a racist", but I look at them sidelong and say "Don't listen to me, listen to the racists".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about... by josefresco on Tuesday November 13, 2018 @02:14PM (#18443887)

> The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog.

The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".

[ Parent | on HN ]