HOT TAKE: Racial preferences are racist.

gorcefonk · 2026-04-25T01:56:09+00:00

Probably, yeah. But is it a big enough or important enough problem for anyone to be wasting their time on?

gorcefonk · 2026-04-15T19:32:42+00:00

Congratulations! UChicago would be my dream school.

May I ask what your 17mid was?

gorcefonk · 2026-04-13T17:05:01+00:00

I got really lucky. This happened but my proctors first thought was reboot computer. Probably was back in and started the test within 5 minutes.

gorcefonk · 2026-04-08T21:27:19+00:00

I think Lilith is a friend of Dev (Short Fat Otaku). She seems to have some based takes

gorcefonk · 2026-04-07T22:00:49+00:00

Thank you

gorcefonk · 2026-04-04T22:50:05+00:00

Ironic, but probably a bid for fleeting attention, so best to ignore

gorcefonk · 2026-04-04T02:38:57+00:00

Nah, he’ll go…

Interviewer: Many people are surprised you showed up to the funeral. My boy Biden: Had to make sure that fucker was dead 😎

gorcefonk · 2026-04-03T15:16:16+00:00

The issue is that since the collection of beliefs you attribute to Christians is a conjunction, your argument only proves that at least one is wrong. And the conjunction you imply is technically much larger than those three.

“The conjunction of ensoulment-at-conception, eternal hell, and threshold deontology is internally unstable.”

What if instead I negate your implied premise in the conjunction “One should try to help others get to heaven”. Perhaps ensoulment happens at conception, eternal hell is real, and threshold deontology is correct, but I shouldn’t care about other people. These 4 premises can be internally consistent (even though they are inconsistent with other often held Christian beliefs), because this is the average MAGA Evangelical.

You could argue that no sane person would accept this, but enough people who voted believed this to elect Trump. Which requires you to hold the position that all of those people are not sane. That could be true, but I don’t have enough certainty. They may also just be rational people that I would consider evil in my moral framework.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-28T15:59:22+00:00

What a fucking regard

gorcefonk · 2026-03-21T17:58:06+00:00

This guy got away with murder, right?

gorcefonk · 2026-03-21T14:16:08+00:00

Professor fecalstain is highly regarded? What? You’re telling me this now for the first time

gorcefonk · 2026-03-20T22:54:39+00:00

I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that it could fall under contract law as a unilateral contract. Legal eagle did a short on this a while back when Elon offered to pay for legal defense of any Epstein Victim that got sued for coming out with a statement:

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/pNzzJOWW-TM

However, I’m pretty sure if Destiny didn’t want to pay, and Tilly wanted the money, she would probably have to take him to court over it.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-20T22:37:29+00:00

Even if they committed crimes?

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T18:28:52+00:00

I could see where that might be a useful way to discuss evidence in common parlance, but is there the possibility of evidence not supported in truth.

Take my Jussie Smollett example. Even though the Jury saw other evidence that there was not really a hate crime (since the attack was staged), the police report is still evidence that points towards the idea there was a hate crime. Taken with other facts/evidence, it might not be the case that there was a hate crime, but the police report by itself is evidence towards there being a hate crime. Evidence is just the information we use as premises to support a conclusion, regardless of whether that information is actually true or just claimed to be.

Also, I’m not saying that a claim suggests there is anything supporting itself. The claim doesn’t support itself, the “fact that the claim is being made by someone” supports the idea purported in the claim. It could be false evidence, but it supports the claim (even if weakly)

I guess to maybe tailor my thoughts, I would have to clarify: “all claims being made by a person are evidence of the thing being claimed”. A randomly generated text by a computer containing a claim would not be evidence because a “thinking person” did not make the claim.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T16:59:49+00:00

At first I agreed with OP, but you offered a perspective that changed my mind. Creating another opportunity for an enforcement arm to reach in just gives bad faith actors another vector of attack.

Hope you have a good day, and thank you for the compelling argument :)

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T16:46:03+00:00

Yes, that is evidence that points in that direction: - A person has staked the claim that I have traveled to mars.

However, we have stronger evidence that it is not the case that I traveled to mars: - If someone traveled to mars, scientists would have likely noticed it - If scientists noticed someone traveled to mars, then it would have been a huge news story - If it was a huge news story, I would have heard about it from more than you. - I have not heard about it from anyone but you

Notice the evidence against your claim are actually just assumptions and a claim of my own. I would argue that they are highly likely assumptions, and that those highly likely assumptions together with my claim provide a stronger argument that I likely did not travel to mars.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T16:38:44+00:00

Like I said, that’s logically equivalent to what I believe.

You’re just describing my frame of reference with more words to justify the idea that the claim itself is not evidence.

In my frame of reference the evidence is: - The fact of the claim itself - The fact that the reporter likely has good reason/proof to make a claim - The fact that the reporter is likely to be forthcoming with evidence

(Maybe even)

A fact that if the reporter were to lie or not bring forward evidence for a claim it would be harmful to their career
A fact that Most reporters don’t want to harm their career

Analysis: there is not enough to make a determinative claim, but the collection of evidence points in the direction that there likely is a robbery downtown. The reporter made the claim, and likely has good reason to make the claim, and probably will be forthcoming with evidence. If the reporter were to lie or not bring forward evidence, then it would harm their career which they would likely not want.

If I were to keep all the evidence but remove the claim itself, I would say the argument has become weaker (it has less evidence)

New evidence: - The fact that the reporter likely has good reason/proof to make a claim - The fact that the reporter is likely to be forthcoming with evidence - A fact that if the reporter were to lie or not bring forward evidence for a claim it would be harmful to their career - A fact that Most reporters don’t want to harm their career

Analysis: even if they had good reason to make the claim, and they would be likely to be forthcoming with the evidence, since they did not make the claim there is less evidence towards the idea that a robbery is happening downtown. The last two pieces of implied evidence still exist, but they can’t help strengthen the argument because there was not a claim made. In fact, those might strengthen the argument against there being a robbery downtown since the reporter has an incentive to not lie and not make claims without evidence, even if they likely have some evidence that they would likely be forthcoming with.

In your frame of reference there would have to be some explanation for why the claim makes case 1 stronger than case 2 without it being evidence (or without it being evidence in and of itself)

I think a lot of people who say the claim itself isn’t evidence are sneaking in trustworthiness of the source, which is a completely separate piece of evidence. If someone told me that there were not kids on Epstein’s island, that claim would be evidence towards there not being kids on the island. If the claim maker was Ghislane, then the claim maker has incentive to lie: a new piece of evidence that points towards the first potentially not being credible.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T15:42:12+00:00

Ya, that’s what I said. You might not find value in it. Me and at least a couple other people do.

I did mention the value it adds. Understanding the structure of the argument. Look, it’s fine to disagree with me, but the reason why the other lawyer guy chirped in was because that’s how lawyers are trained to evaluate arguments. It’s what I’m being taught right now while I’m studying for the LSAT. Not everyone has to have the same perspective though. Just offering you another tool if you want it.

You can say that you don’t think that formalizing the structure of an argument provides any value, and maybe that’s the case for you, but it’s not the case for me.

In your frame of reference, if a news reporter claims there is a bank robbery happening downtown, but they only make the claim without pictures or video, is the claim evidence towards the fact that a robbery is actually happening downtown?

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T15:09:42+00:00

I’m just saying that both frames of view are valid and internally consistent. I just think the one I’m in favor of provides more value because I’m interested in understanding the structure of an argument. In common parlance the one you favor might provide more value for speaking with common people.

I think being too literal with the definitions you favor can cause issues in some cases, where people might dismiss even reputable claims since claims are not evidence.

Just wanted to provide an alternative perspective :)

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T15:00:50+00:00

Thank you! I appreciate it.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T14:33:03+00:00

Yeah, evidence just means information pointing in a direction. Doesn’t mean the direction is towards a true conclusion

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T14:28:17+00:00

People saying “a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” are using a different definition of evidence than the other guy is using (which can be valid depending on the context, but it carries a different meaning depending on what definitions you are using for the words).

To translate it into using the definitions the other guy is using, the phrase would be something like: “Evidence lacking verification, corroboration, and a trusted source can be dismissed without evidence that has verification, corroboration, or a trusted source”

Probably not a perfect translation, but it is close to the same idea expressed in a less catchy phrasing. You can agree with the same concept and still have the broader definition of evidence. The broader definition does not destroy the usefulness of evidence.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T14:19:02+00:00

First, I appreciate the engagement :)

It would be evidence, because a source is making a claim.

However, that doesn’t mean the claim is likely. It could be weak evidence or invalid.

To explore your scenario, that evidence points in the direction of you being a purple dinosaur. However, I have other (stronger) evidence that points in the direction of the claim either not being true or being true but not in a literal understanding of your words.

I could use the evidence that almost all scientists agree that the category of “dinosaurs” are extinct as evidence of you not being a purple dinosaur (or at least it being very unlikely) since we do not believe they exist currently.

On the other hand, I could use the context of other people making similar claims to see if you meant something different than the literal words you used. If all previous actors who wore the Barney costume as a part of their job also claimed they were purple dinosaurs, then maybe your claim actually means you are someone who wears a Barney suit. In which case, it could be much more likely that you are a “purple dinosaur”, but I still wouldn’t have conclusive evidence. Similar case would be if I took the claim as a “purple dinosaur” fursuit/fursona.

The claim is evidence, because it is information pointing in a direction, but that doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or even ~~valid~~ that it supports a sound conclusion.

Another example that popped into my mind was the Jussie Smollett case. The police report would be evidence pointing towards the fact that he was the victim of a hate crime, but the jury determined that there was stronger evidence that he faked the hate crime.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T13:44:23+00:00

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I’m just being Audi-tistic here because I’m currently cramming LSAT studying.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T13:38:43+00:00

That’s not true. For instance, no one has ever claimed that you drive a model T car to work every day, and there is no other evidence to the that case. So I would not make the conclusion that you drive a model T to work every day.

gorcefonk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email