Paul Graham - How to Disagree

[Bootstrap]

I have to admit, I agree with Josh. If someone of disreputable character quotes Jesus, that’s not wrong but why not just quote Jesus instead of some random no name I’ve never heard of?

Isn't this precisely what this thread is about? You can derail any thread by making personal accusations, and they do not need to be true. Just use lots of strongly emotional language, and don't provide any evidence. Meanwhile, keep turning the focus of the thread back to those accusations, and insist that is now the topic. Whenever someone says something on the actual topic, just repeat your accusations. We have long threads on MN that consist largely of just that.

I don't think Josh's accusations are true. I cannot find any public statements by Paul Graham on LGBTQ+ issues. When I search his blog for various keywords related to LGBTQ+ issues, I cannot find any matches. When I ask GPT engines, they give me results like this:

While Paul Graham has written extensively on various topics, including startups, technology, and society, I couldn’t find any specific essays or statements directly addressing LGBTQ+ issues in his publicly available work.

He's fairly private about a lot of his views. He's married - and has not been previously married - and has two children. So ... what makes you think Paul Graham is "someone of disreputable character"?

Also, Paul Graham is not quoting Jesus here, I am, along with other scriptures. Making claims like this, without evidence, is something the Bible tells us not to do.

Proverbs 16:28 - "A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends."
Proverbs 26:20 - "Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down."
James 1:26 - "Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless."
Exodus 20:16 - "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

See also Deuteronomy 19:15-21.

So how do we, as the people of God, discuss topics where we disagree, according to Scripture? I'd start with this: loose accusations are not what we should be doing. It's rarely helpful to go after people and try to tear them down or smear their reputation in public.

Instead of tearing people down, we should actually discuss the topic. And that's simple to measure. In any thread, what is the topic? Now look at any post - especially our own posts - and ask if it's about that topic. If it's not, is it spreading accusations against someone? If so, why, and with what level of evidence? Even a true, proven accusation is not helpful when used as a club to derail a conversation on another topic.

And as God's people, we really should avoid the sins of speech that the Bible teaches us about.

[Soloist]

Isn't this precisely what this thread is about? You can derail any thread by making personal accusations, and they do not need to be true. Just use lots of strongly emotional language, and don't provide any evidence. Meanwhile, keep turning the focus of the thread back to those accusations, and insist that is now the topic. Whenever someone says something on the actual topic, just repeat your accusations. We have long threads on MN that consist largely of just that.

I don't think Josh's accusations are true. I cannot find any public statements by Paul Graham on LGBTQ+ issues. When I search his blog for various keywords related to LGBTQ+ issues, I cannot find any matches. When I ask GPT engines, they give me results like this:

Perhaps you should read what Josh actually said. The lgbtq was a fairly small comment. I think the atheist focus was his primary point.

Plenty of Scripture you can use rather then some no name atheist.

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps you should read what Josh actually said. The lgbtq was a fairly small comment. I think the atheist focus was his primary point.

I haven't been able to find any place where Paul Graham identifies as an atheist either. I can't find evidence for any of these claims:

... people like Paul Graham, who inform me that a man can turn into a woman and two men can be married, but also claim God doesn’t exist. I don’t trust someone like that to figure out any “facts” since they have rejected truth itself. (This isn’t meant to pick on pg, but his stances on these things are public knowledge.)

Should we trust this kind of accusation without facts? Is making this kind of claim without evidence a way to pursue truth?

Beyond that, if so much of of our energy goes into name calling, ad hominem attacks, responding to tone, and taking offense, where is the energy for actually discussing and understanding anything else? Isn't all of that more fruit of the flesh than fruit of the Spirit?

[Soloist]

Should we trust this kind of accusation without facts? Is making this kind of claim without evidence a way to pursue truth?

Beyond that, if so much of of our energy goes into name calling, ad hominem attacks, responding to tone, and taking offense, where is the energy for actually discussing and understanding anything else? Isn't all of that more fruit of the flesh than fruit of the Spirit?

I don’t see that it matters, you could just simply ignore it. The primary point I would agree with Josh on is that Scripture is more useful then someone else. I’d see less value quoting Robert’s guide to discussions (no offense intended Robert) then just quoting Scripture.
I didn’t take offense and I didn’t think Josh did but it seemed like you may have.

Perhaps these discussions are not fruitful unless they start from Scripture?

[Soloist]

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/673624958015168512
https://medium.com/@paulgraham_69742/w ... 03274eb364

I think Boot, relying on pre-programmed bots to argue with Josh will result in you not actually finding simple data that is fairly easy to find.

You basically said Josh’s accusations were not accurate. Turns out… you were wrong.

[Bootstrap]

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/673624958015168512
https://medium.com/@paulgraham_69742/w ... 03274eb364

I think Boot, relying on pre-programmed bots to argue with Josh will result in you not actually finding simple data that is fairly easy to find.

You basically said Josh’s accusations were not accurate. Turns out… you were wrong.

You're right - thanks.

I didn't just use GPT, I also searched his essays for keywords, read his Wikipedia page, etc. But not his Twitter feed - I ignore Twitter when I can ...

[Soloist]

You're right - thanks.

I didn't just use GPT, I also searched his essays for keywords, read his Wikipedia page, etc. But not his Twitter feed - I ignore Twitter when I can ...

I just googled it.

[Josh]

Paul Graham:

The most extreme of the things you can't say would be very shocking to most readers. If you doubt that, imagine what people in 1830 would think of our default educated east coast beliefs about, say, premarital sex, homosexuality, or the literal truth of the Bible. We would seem depraved to them. So we should expect that someone who similarly violated our taboos would seem depraved to us.

When someone rejects the truth of the Bible, I don’t want to go to them as an authority on truth.