You seem to be deliberately trying to not understand my clear points.
Yes, there are facts in the article. They are presented in unison with emotional retellings of difficult circumstances from the author’s subjective perceptions.
Because of this, it’s not easy to extract meaning about the facts that is not biased by the emotional presentation.
Yet when dealing with an issue of this importance, where there is great potential to do harm to a large cohort of people if we design ineffective or incorrect policies, it is paramount to consider just the facts and understand quantitatively how those facts would relate to measurable outcome changes society would value.
That makes it so much worse when a subjective narrative story creates a mixed picture of what the facts mean.
>You seem to be deliberately trying to not understand my clear points.
You imagine you speak in pure axiomatic terms, and that I am incapable of reason. It's not the case. You make baseless assertions, one after the other. Consider this:
> it is paramount to consider just the facts and understand quantitatively how those facts would relate to measurable outcome changes society would value.
Maybe pick this apart. Why is it paramount? I agree that it is important, but you offer no reasoning for your opinion - built not on facts, but your moral standing.
And how does one 'understand quantitatively'?
These are rhetorical questions for you to answer. I think you're right that our views of the world are at odds with one another.
I believe that appeals to emotion are unavoidable, and part and parcel of unpacking the social compact, and coming to consensus on what is morally important - and that consensus will endlessly shift. Whereas you have some notion of moral realism, where moral facts emerge - 'ought' becomes 'is' - and are quantifiable. You'd probably be a fan of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape. But even Sam admits their can be equal peaks and valleys, and here we enter the world of subjectivity.
I suggest you dig deeper into the rabbit hole of philosophy and get out of the scientism local maxima you've caught yourself in.
Yes, there are facts in the article. They are presented in unison with emotional retellings of difficult circumstances from the author’s subjective perceptions.
Because of this, it’s not easy to extract meaning about the facts that is not biased by the emotional presentation.
Yet when dealing with an issue of this importance, where there is great potential to do harm to a large cohort of people if we design ineffective or incorrect policies, it is paramount to consider just the facts and understand quantitatively how those facts would relate to measurable outcome changes society would value.
That makes it so much worse when a subjective narrative story creates a mixed picture of what the facts mean.