• Anamana@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?

    But I agree walls of text are not nice, at least try to summarize it a bit to make it readable…

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Where do they say it represents a form of ‘objective truth’?

      Well I don’t see any “/s” on it so I take it on face value that that poster is presenting it as being true. Are you saying I should assume they believe its fiction?

      • Anamana@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m not sure if you know what objective truth means, but why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility? It’s not their goal to be objective, but to push for change. Not saying the things they stated are wrong, but they are first and foremost moral statements.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          why would you expect it from an anticar lobby sub? Like, it’s a political movement… not a scientific research facility?

          You and I are in full agreement on this. I have zero issue with this content in the anti car lobby sub, except that’s not where the poster is putting it anymore. They’re posting it in “worldnews”. This is why I have a problem with it here, but not there.

          • Anamana@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I mean we’re here in the comments to exchange perspectives primarily. Never saw anyone quoting research papers. There’s no rule about forbidding comments to be biased or opinionated. So I’d say our access to any form of potential objective truth, as fundamental basis for discussion, is fairly limited. World news is not only about scientifically validated facts. It’s rather a fast paced informational feed, where you have to balance speed and factual quality.

            And we had context for the anticar lobby comment, so it’s not like the person said: look, here is the irrefutable truth from an independent source. They rather said: Look here are some reasons for why XYZ is bad.

            I don’t have a problem with it, besides it being a lazy and hard to read solution.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            So instead of thinking about anything that is written there and looking it up, it is all backed by scientific research, you just attack the messenger. Great work of anti intellectualism.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              So instead of thinking about anything that is written there and looking it up, it is all backed by scientific research,

              “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens

              you just attack the messenger.

              Read every single one of my posts here in this thread. There are zero attacks on the messenger.