256
Lauren Boebert rages over USA Boxing’s trans policy even though she clearly doesn’t understand it
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
256 points (90.5% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4434 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, you're saying its binary; all or nothing. I've said many times now that's not the measure. The measure is if is a trusted source for answers. It isn't. It can be part of a path to get a trusted answer, but raw ChatGPT isn't.
A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy.
If you need the definition of that its this:
"Logical fallacies are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion, but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. These mistakes in reasoning typically consist of an argument and a premise that does not support the conclusion." source
You're trying to move the goalposts with the argument. We started this exploring the question of "Is ChatGPT a trusted source?" Now you're trying to redefine the question of "Is ChatGPT better than nothing?". I'm not engaging in that question, and you've stopped engaging in the original question.
I don't see any productive conversation going forward. I thank you for your time and attention during this discussion. I don't believe either one of us was persuaded to the other's position, but I appreciate your involvement. Have a great day!
I think I see where our misunderstanding is. I have never stated that it is a "trusted source". Only as a source that has positive (and in my opinion reasonably high) credence , that is that it increases validity of the statement. But it does not make it true! This is precisely why I
Stated that I am not specialist (so that you know MY credence is low)
Provided source of the statement (so that you know that the credence of those statements is better than mine, but not to the level of actual scientific papers, or even Wikipedia)
That means that you (the reader of my post) should NOT take my statement as true, only as possibly or likely to be true, and you should not assume that I think I am absolutely right. However, I do believe that there is quite noticeable credence of ChatGPT output and I was posting this in discussion board for the purpose of discussion of those statements with total expectation if the statements are wrong, than people will point that out. So far, despite of multiple attacks on my post, nobody have mention any factual error in the ChatGPT output.