correct
Post by twetch#7355
When it comes to the ‘reasonable’ part - that works both ways, too.
Everything is Bayesian: Everything has upper- + lower-bounds.
What the chain says
- Block
- 635 047
- Time
- 2020-05-15T15:09:02Z
- Signer
- 1J6h7Bex83EVCGvamT5LMVm9MECX4bSquW
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#7355
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1J6h7Bex83EVCGvamT5LMVm9MECX4bSquW VerifiedReplies (7)
I’d wager that blindness to range-maxes (and mins) contributes to many slippery slope arguments.
ie: It’s not only openness.
Folks less comfortable exploring boundaries see the lack of an ‘upper bound’ on logic as ‘unreasonable’, because it’s shortsighted.
‘Shortsighted’ - insomuch as the full context is either not considered or part of the argument.
And maybe this should probably be expected, too.
Those comfortable with exploration are perhaps more likely to throw caution to the wind, so to speak.
I think this just goes to show that depth of nuance is ultimately important, and that patience + ability to accept uncomfortable situations for long enough to have a true grasp on understanding .. is key to societal progress.
The habit of micro aggression betrays our critical faculties.
In the modern world, this fuels #escapeism + overly-consumptive behaviors that feed ‘the drip’.
Right + Wrong are replaced by Happy + Sad.
Hacking the frontal lobe from the outside.