Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- ramblings:accuracy [2023/12/20 23:16] – ultracomfy
+++ ramblings:accuracy [2025/04/09 19:55] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+~~Title:Accuracy~~
 <WRAP column right 18%>
 {{page>Templates:ramblings}}
@@ Line 4: / Line 5: @@
 <fs xx-large>Accuracy</fs> describes two different things ((As far as this wiki is concerned. See how I am being inaccurate ALREADY.)):
-  * The quality of the presentation of an argument - how sound it is.
+  * The quality of an argument - how sound it is.
-  * The meaning of words and how different it is from reality.
+  * The difference between the meaning of words and the reality one is trying to describe //using// these words.
-For me, the first part is what matters. I want to depict concepts and how they interact - call it "mechanics" or "interactions". For that I don't need exact words, I need people to understand what I mean. I will strive for maximum accuracy in this regard. "War" and "Proxy War" are both terms to describe what happened in Vietnam, but I am not going to write proxy war. While, yes, "proxy war" will more accurately reflect the nature of the war that happened, what I **want** to communicate is that people died in a fight they were sent into by a government for political purposes. That there is actually one more government in the chain does not matter at all because the important part here is the people dying and the reason they died for ("Government wants!" is the reason and "But not THIS government, it was the other government!" being irrelevant). At the end of the day, it's a war all over again.
+For me, the first part is what matters. I want to depict concepts and how they interact - call it "mechanics" or "dynamics". For that I don't need exact words, I need people to understand what I mean. I will strive for maximum accuracy in this regard. "War" and "Proxy War" are both terms to describe what happened in Vietnam, but I am not going to write proxy war. While, yes, "proxy war" will more accurately reflect the nature of the war that happened, what I **want** to communicate is that people died in a fight they were sent into by a government for political purposes. That there is actually one more government in the chain does not matter at all because the important part here is the people dying and the reason they died for ("Government wants!" is the reason and "But not THIS government, it was the other government!" being irrelevant). At the end of the day, it's a war all over again. It seems like people love to use words as a distraction, a smokescreen, to argue about trivialities without ever needing to address the actual arguments that are tried to be put forth.
 ====== Differences ======
-Companies might call it a "new, revised recipe", but I will continue to call it a "bad marketing scheme". "But you're missing out on the details! We changed so many things!" Yes, you changed exactly as much as you had to to be able to write "new, revised recipe" on it without getting fined. Jehovah's witnesses may call it "respecting the secular authorities like the bible told them to", I will continue to call it "rejecting the secular authorities". That's not what it is? That's absofuckinglutely what it is. The point is that people always seem to think that their specific ways are //so very much different// from everything else. They will always add their special flavor to well-established things without making any fundamental changes, but then drag conversations into the mud about these irrelevant details because <wrap em>they're important!</wrap> Look, just because your Schnitzel has a lemon on top of it doesn't make it any less of a Schnitzel. I will admit, there WILL eventually be a point where talking about this Schnitzel with a lemon on top as "just a Schnitzel" will run into problems, but at this point I will always make the necessary concessions.
+Companies might call it a "new, revised recipe", but I will continue to call it a "bad marketing scheme". "But you're missing out on the details! We changed so many things!" Yes, you changed exactly as much as you had to to be able to write "new, revised recipe" on it without getting fined. [[:Jehovah's witnesses]] may call it "respecting the secular authorities like the bible told them to", I will continue to call it "rejecting the secular authorities". That's not what it is? That's quite exactly what it is. The point is that people always seem to think that their specific ways are **so very much different** from everything else. They will always add their special flavor to well-established things without making any fundamental changes, but then drag conversations into the mud about these irrelevant details because <wrap em>they're important!</wrap> Look, just because your Schnitzel has a lemon on top of it doesn't make it any less of a Schnitzel.((I will admit, there WILL eventually be a point where talking about this Schnitzel with a lemon on top as "just a Schnitzel" will run into problems, but at that point I will always make the necessary concessions.))
 ====== Details ======
-Additionally, there will be claims that may appear to be completely wrong. Ignoring the cases (and there will be plenty) where I am just uninformed, if the claim in question was placed deliberately then I chose to do so despite apparent "arguments" against them. See this example from the page on [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]:
+Additionally, there will be claims that may appear to be completely wrong. Ignoring the cases (and there will be plenty) where I am just uninformed, if the claim in question was placed deliberately then I chose to do so //despite// apparent "arguments" against them. See this example from the page on Jehovah's Witnesses:
-I write that JW teach to reject secular authorities as much as they can (well, as far as they can before getting into //too// much trouble). Strictly speaking this is not correct. Witnesses are taught to “respect” the secular authorities. Here is what my friend would consider to be accurate:\\
+<WRAP center round box 60%>
-//JWs are taught to listen to the secular authorities insofar as the Bible, and more relevantly, the Governing Body agrees with them. They are also taught to be no part of the world (John 15:19), and to reject worldly people and ideas. That is, unless they are preaching, where they have been commanded (Matthew 28:19) to convert people into their cult.//\\
+I write that JW teach to reject secular authorities as much as they can (well, as far as they can before getting into //too// much trouble). Strictly speaking this is not correct. Witnesses are taught to “respect” the secular authorities. Here is what my friend would consider to be accurate:
-Now, while this is what one could perhaps consider as the “full truth”, the is not the “real truth”. The real truth, and even my friend agrees with this, is the following:\\
-<wrap em>Fuck those demons, we’re gonna be as compliant as we have to be to maintain survival.</wrap>
-Here, I **know** what JW "teach". I know about Romans and what it says, but I also know what //other// things witnesses teach. This is not me being "uninformed", this is me leaving out a nonsensical debate over witness doctrine. That is done //on purpose// because I //know// that witnesses like to pretend to respect secular authorities. They do not, and besides these two or three bible excerpts the entire witness doctrine is based on "us good them bad", so that is what I will write: They teach 'them bad'.
+//JWs are taught to listen to the secular authorities insofar as the Bible, and more relevantly, the Governing Body agrees with them. They are also taught to be no part of the world (John 15:19), and to reject worldly people and ideas. That is, unless they are preaching, where they have been commanded (Matthew 28:19) to convert people into their cult.//
-I know that witnesses (or anyone else who knows better) will cry in pain after reading my claim about witness doctrine because "it's not that simple" when, in reality, it really is that simple. I will not let myself be distracted by these stupid, half-assed attempts of witnesses to make claims otherwise while they are literally part of a club that thinks of themselves as the last bastion of good against bad, where "bad" for them literally means "the secular authorities" and where they are literally also taught that it is the secular authorities who will turn against JW and try to destroy them.
+Now, while this is what one could perhaps consider as the “full truth”, this is not the “real truth”. The real truth, and even my friend agrees with this, is the following: (From the perspective of JWs) <wrap em>Fuck those demons, we’re gonna be as compliant as we have to be to maintain survival.</wrap>
+</WRAP>
+Here, I **know** what JW "teach". I know about Romans and what it says, but I also know what //other// things witnesses teach. This is not me being "uninformed", this is me leaving out a nonsensical debate over witness doctrine. I do this //on purpose// because I //know// that witnesses like to pretend to respect secular authorities; they do not, and besides these two or three bible excerpts the entire witness doctrine is based on "us good them bad", so that is what I will write: "They teach 'them bad'."
+I know that witnesses (or anyone else who knows better) will cry in pain after reading my claim about witness doctrine because "it's not that simple", when, in reality, //it really is that simple//. I will not let myself be distracted by these stupid, half-assed attempts of witnesses to make claims otherwise while they are literally part of a club that thinks of themselves as the last bastion of good against bad, where "bad", for them, literally means "the secular authorities" and where they are literally also taught that it is the secular authorities who will turn against JW and try to destroy them.
+----
 ====== The nature of this Wiki ======
-It cannot be understated how important it is to keep in mind that this is how this wiki works - it tries give an idea on how and where I categorize things, and for what reason, NOT to teach specifics or details about any one thing. Jehovah's witnesses "paradise" falls into the category "heaven" in my mind, so that's what I will say. However, this has significant implications for YOU, the reader:
+It cannot be understated how important it is to keep in mind that this is how this wiki works - it tries to give an idea on how and where I categorize things, and for what reason, NOT to teach specifics or details about any one thing. Jehovah's witnesses "paradise" falls into the category "heaven" in my mind, so that's what I will say. However, this has significant implications for YOU, the reader:
-After reading any one of my articles, please do NOT think that you have learned anything. Do not run around and present your newfound "knowledge" as knowledge, because it will make you look like an idiot. Just like my articles will look really dumb to anyone who insists on these details, you will look really dumb to them for leaving out the details or "confusing" things. The reality is that I was very well aware of the "difference" between things but refused to acknowledge the difference.
+After reading any one of my articles, please do NOT think that you have learned anything. Do not [[:im 14 and this is deep|run around and present your newfound "knowledge" as knowledge]], because it will make you look like an idiot. Just like my articles will look really dumb to anyone who insists on these details, you will look really dumb to them for leaving out the details or "confusing" things. The reality is that I was very well aware of the "difference" between things but refused to acknowledge the difference.
 ----