Nicholas Drake
@nickydrake.bsky.social
Ngāi Tahu. New Zealand philosopher. Research Fellow, School of Regulation and Global Governance, and Research Affiliate, School of Philosophy, at the Australian National University.
There's a typo, a "to" missing: "on 42%, compared the actual 36% they went on to secure . . . "
October 26, 2025 at 10:48 PM
There's a typo, a "to" missing: "on 42%, compared the actual 36% they went on to secure . . . "
There's a good piece on Ayling here: rationalists.nz/articles/jou...
Jonathan Ayling - a wolf in sheep’s clothing
I’m sure many of you will have heard of the Free Speech Union (FSU), which formed in 2021 by registering as a Trade Union. They’re a successor to the Free Speech Coalition, which formed in 2018 in…
rationalists.nz
October 25, 2025 at 12:46 AM
There's a good piece on Ayling here: rationalists.nz/articles/jou...
I have to say, "The crowd is a mix of ages and genders" is a really odd thing for people to chant.
October 18, 2025 at 9:08 PM
I have to say, "The crowd is a mix of ages and genders" is a really odd thing for people to chant.
You have a typo, just so you know: "It haven’t even announced the financing . . ."
October 11, 2025 at 5:29 AM
You have a typo, just so you know: "It haven’t even announced the financing . . ."
Thanks for remembering me - I hope you're doing well.
October 3, 2025 at 9:01 PM
Thanks for remembering me - I hope you're doing well.
Yes, that's me. :) My apologies, have we met?
September 28, 2025 at 6:09 AM
Yes, that's me. :) My apologies, have we met?
There's a typo in the subtitle: "neoliberal ideologues has refused".
July 8, 2025 at 6:35 AM
There's a typo in the subtitle: "neoliberal ideologues has refused".
I'm so glad to hear this!
July 24, 2024 at 7:53 AM
I'm so glad to hear this!
I'm so sorry to hear this, Helen.
May 31, 2024 at 12:13 PM
I'm so sorry to hear this, Helen.
Well, I'm sorry you HATE NICE LITTLE ANIMAL PEOPLE, Kieran.
May 9, 2024 at 1:59 AM
Well, I'm sorry you HATE NICE LITTLE ANIMAL PEOPLE, Kieran.
(A bad example, Chaya Raichik is a big fan of doing just that. But only if she picks the hospitals.) 4/4
April 24, 2024 at 8:16 PM
(A bad example, Chaya Raichik is a big fan of doing just that. But only if she picks the hospitals.) 4/4
The right to private property is the right to own *some stuff*; similarly, the right to free speech is the right to say *some stuff*. No one disagrees with this; no one thinks there should be no penalty for spending your life phoning bomb threats into hospitals. 3/n
April 24, 2024 at 8:15 PM
The right to private property is the right to own *some stuff*; similarly, the right to free speech is the right to say *some stuff*. No one disagrees with this; no one thinks there should be no penalty for spending your life phoning bomb threats into hospitals. 3/n
I use an analogy with the right to private property: it isn't the right to own everything. Nor is it the right to own anything: it doesn't mean you can own people or the Earth's atmosphere. 2/n
April 24, 2024 at 8:10 PM
I use an analogy with the right to private property: it isn't the right to own everything. Nor is it the right to own anything: it doesn't mean you can own people or the Earth's atmosphere. 2/n
I've just been explaining this to students in the Philosophy and Public Policy course I'm TAing. People use "the right to free speech" to mean "the right to say anything," but it doesn't mean that. 1/n
April 24, 2024 at 8:07 PM
I've just been explaining this to students in the Philosophy and Public Policy course I'm TAing. People use "the right to free speech" to mean "the right to say anything," but it doesn't mean that. 1/n
So what you’re claiming there is wrong. But it doesn’t mater for the main point, because to the extent you and the cartoon are talking about the same thing, you agree that it's wrong: it’s permissible to disagree with someone without going through 1-3, not impermissible, as the cartoon says. 12/12
April 23, 2024 at 7:02 PM
So what you’re claiming there is wrong. But it doesn’t mater for the main point, because to the extent you and the cartoon are talking about the same thing, you agree that it's wrong: it’s permissible to disagree with someone without going through 1-3, not impermissible, as the cartoon says. 12/12
For example, if someone makes an argument of this form:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P
we can say with certainty that the argument doesn't work, even if we don't understand the premises or the conclusion. 11/12
If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P
we can say with certainty that the argument doesn't work, even if we don't understand the premises or the conclusion. 11/12
April 23, 2024 at 7:01 PM
For example, if someone makes an argument of this form:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P
we can say with certainty that the argument doesn't work, even if we don't understand the premises or the conclusion. 11/12
If P then Q
Q
Therefore, P
we can say with certainty that the argument doesn't work, even if we don't understand the premises or the conclusion. 11/12
And yet again, if the conclusion of an argument doesn't follow from the premises, you can for sure that the argument doesn't work without understanding any of the content. 10/12
April 23, 2024 at 7:00 PM
And yet again, if the conclusion of an argument doesn't follow from the premises, you can for sure that the argument doesn't work without understanding any of the content. 10/12
And if an argument relies on a false premise, you can show that the argument isn't sound by showing that that one premise is false, even if you don’t understand the other premises or the conclusion. 9/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:59 PM
And if an argument relies on a false premise, you can show that the argument isn't sound by showing that that one premise is false, even if you don’t understand the other premises or the conclusion. 9/12
Also, it's plainly false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't demonstrated that you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that it's completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:59 PM
Also, it's plainly false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't demonstrated that you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that it's completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12
The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:58 PM
The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12
It's false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't demonstrated that you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that the cupboard is completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:56 PM
It's false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't demonstrated that you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that the cupboard is completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12
The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:55 PM
The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12
Also, it's false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't shown you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that the cupboard is completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:53 PM
Also, it's false that you can't claim to have refuted a position that you haven't shown you fully understand. I don't understand the claim that there's an invisible possum in the cupboard, but I can show that the cupboard is completely full of bricks and has no room for a possum. 8/12
The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:52 PM
The reason Dennett’s giving that advice is that he thinks it’ll persuade your opponent that you're on their side in some way; they'll like you and won’t think of you as an enemy, so they’ll be more open to what you have to say. 7/12
Neither of those things need have any connection to the content of the claim you might or might not understand. What you're talking about—showing you understand a position—and what the cartoon is talking about are completely different. 6/12
April 23, 2024 at 6:51 PM
Neither of those things need have any connection to the content of the claim you might or might not understand. What you're talking about—showing you understand a position—and what the cartoon is talking about are completely different. 6/12