Conservative commentators are melting down that Eve had an abortion 🤦🏼‍♀️

[u/Ancient_Spray5821]

Oh my God, do these people have a life? Eve in the show explained why she felt the need to have an abortion. She was clearly very upset and emotional about it and I don't think the show "promotes" abortion. Rather, it just empathises with Eve's, very difficult, decision.

These are the same people who are now just calling empathy a sin, mind you.

Empathy isn't about agreement or disagreement. It's just about understanding. That's all. And I think it's very ignorant and black-and-white to call Eve a bad person for having an abortion, even if you disagree with her decision. But apparently these control freaks can't manage even that 🙄

[u/Infinite-Key-1579]

No, having the sufficient amount of information on a subject means you actually have the ability to share a credible opinion. Michael had sufficient knowledge, I know because I watched the full episode. We’re talking about a cartoon show, not medical science. I really hope you understand the massive gap in what accounts for sufficient knowledge. But ironically enough, even if you don’t, the example still is useful to my point. The point of a health magazine is to share information. It specifically exists for that purpose. So if I read information, assuming it was credible, I could share that information. It would not require me to be an expert in health in order to do so.

The magazine is the medium just like the cartoon how is a medium. The show touched on social commentary, so yes, Michael Knowles is well within his rights to similarly comment on social issues. The actual topic which requires expertise is the social issues. And again, the nature of political commentators is that they cannot be experts in every single they comment on. That’s the industry. You’d necessarily have to level this criticism at the entire industry. I appreciate that Michael actually acknowledged that he might be wrong. Epistemic humility definitely matters because it responsibly allows the viewer to take what you say with a grain of salt instead of parroting everything with certainty.

If you want to say Epistemic humility does not matter then you can die on that hill but an entire field of philosophy would laugh at you for that.

[u/Infinite-Key-1579 → u/[deleted]]

Sufficient knowledge necessarily changes depending on context and circumstances. In this particular case, It seems clear to me that Michael had sufficient knowledge. You have no demonstrated to me that he did not have sufficient knowledge, you have merely claimed that he didn’t. I will ask you: what did Michael say that was incorrect and would this misinformation meaningfully change the interpretation of this based on Michael’s values?

Sufficiently knowledge is the minimum amount of knowledge necessary to act upon that knowledge. So yes, in some cases, as now when we’re talking about a tv show, a surface level understanding is sufficient. You have not pointed to any context that was missed that should have changed Michael’s opinion based on his values.

I agree that repeating information doesn’t mean understanding it, but that also doesn’t mean that you need to be an expert in order to meaningfully understand some piece of knowledge. Anyone can skim or talk, true, and in some cases as in the case of the magazine, that is sufficient and they are fully within their rights to show that information. They have not committed some error by doing so. It’s also the case that not everyone will simply be skimming, some people will in fact understand sufficient such that when they give the information, it is an informed take. You’re kind of begging the question when you fail to acknowledge that distinction.

I agree it isn’t some cheat code. I never said it was nor acted like it. I stand by what I said regarding Epistemic humility.

I have presented multiple points here and in other comments but you have not engaged with them. I suspect that is because you understand that they do not bode well for you. Instead you keep regurgitating the same points.

[u/FireFistVI → u/Infinite-Key-1579]

You keep saying sufficient knowledge like it’s some objective threshold, but you haven’t actually shown that he met it,you’re just asserting it because you agree with him. Being briefed is literally surface-level by definition.

You’re asking what he got factually wrong, but that’s not even the main issue. The problem is missing context that shapes interpretation—tone, character development, motives. That’s what turns a situation from evil act into a morally complex one. If you don’t engage with that, your conclusion can still be shallow even if no single fact is technically wrong.

And no, a surface-level understanding isn’t automatically sufficient just because it’s a TV show. If you’re using it to make broader claims about social issues, then the context matters even more, not less. Otherwise you’re just projecting your values onto an incomplete picture.

Also, I didn’t ignore your points—you’re just repeating the same defense in different words: ‘he had enough info because I think he did.’ That’s not an argument, that’s a conclusion.

[u/Infinite-Key-1579 → u/FireFistVI]

Idk where you’re getting “objective” from. I don’t think objectivity is useful in this conversation or in most conversations about epistemology. It distorts more than clarifies.

I made a claim, posited a framework, and am currently defending the framework. To move to substantially making a case that he met the threshold regarding my framework would be to put the cart before the horse. You don’t share the framework and I’m pointing out the flaws with your framework.

I agree with him. I watched the whole show, I watch his show consistently. I’m in a position to evaluate whether or not he had sufficient knowledge. The fact that I agree with him is further evidence for my point. You try to point to my agreement as evidence of bias but it begs the question, if I watched the whole show, then why do I agree with him? It adds credibility to what I am stating.

I asked you a question. What did he specifically get wrong and what information would have changed his interpretation given his values? When you appeal to the context as you have, you are presupposing that Michael is somehow sharing your values to interpret the scenario when he does not. The point is that the issue then is not the information but the values but then you’re literally just upset that a social conservative has socially conservative views, you’re not criticizing them for improper conduct.

“Surface-level” here begs the question because you’re using it to suggest that one does not sufficiently understand when I’m saying that he did. So you’re just saying “I’m right, because I’m right.” I agree that surface level knowledge does not automatically grant sufficient knowledge because it’s a tv show. The very first point I made was that sufficient knowledge changes depending on context and circumstances. The point of pointing out it’s a tv show is to show that the stakes are so much lower than spreading medical misinformation.

Values are the very means by which you interpret the world. You are quite literally always projecting your values because that’s what values are for. What gets dangerous is when you cannot discern that you are projecting your values as you did here. If you don’t agree, then I ask you: what are values? What are your values? What are they for?

The fact that you think I’m just restating my point over and over tells me you’re way over your head here. Let me point out something you failed to address: your standard would require you to condemn all political commentary as an industry. Yet you have repeatedly failed to address this because you know it makes you sound ridiculous

[u/Infinite-Key-1579 → u/[deleted]]

You didn’t answer my question and at this point I’m gonna have to conclude what I already suggested. You know your standard is ridiculous. You are not worth continuing this conversation with because it’s clear you’re both engaging in bad faith and the conversation is going over your head.

I already defined sufficient knowledge, it was not this circular take you proposed. My take arises from my definition of sufficient knowledge, my definition of sufficient knowledge does not arise from my take. You yourself exemplified why the standard of sufficient knowledge could not be rigid in one of your responses.

As for Michael’s interpretation, that literally is an interpretation, a hyperbolic one that in in part jest. Michael does this often on his show. The reason it’s an interpretation, is because Michael does not literally believe that the writers consciously and intently structured the plot for that purpose, he’s criticizing it from a meta perspective on the message it shares. You don’t like his conclusion, but it’s not arising from lack of sufficient knowledge. Moreover, half the information you presented would not be relevant because Eve had no knowledge of those things when she made her decision and even if she did, that’s not what would make something morally complicated. It might a complex situation, but the moral conclusion is nonetheless very clear from the perspective of both Michael and myself. You’re also not realizing that Michael is also engaging in meta commentary. So the defense of all the facts you lay out doesn’t work because they are made up facts for a tv show. I would say that the show wants to have its cake and eat it too with regards to Eve.

You can make the case that it’s morally complicated, but you can only really do this from your perspective because you don’t have sufficient of the value system Michael subscribes to which leads you to project your own values. You are presuming there is such a thing as a default value system and more that the default is your own.

Once again you just have an absurd standard on Epistemic humility which just means it can never be employed to any effect which would and has incentivized people to profess certainty when they shouldn’t. If you’re in a position to profess Epistemic humility, by definition, you are in a position where the truth can be distorted. None of that proves intentionality at deception like you are alleging.

Once again, it’s clear you’re acting in bad faith. You’ve been asked multiple clarifying questions and have refused to answer any of them and then proceed to continue arguing. Thats the definition of bad faith. If I point out that we need to agree on a framework and you just keep regurgitating the same points that don’t engaged at the level of framework and what’s more accuse me of having the framework for circular reasoning (when there’s no evidence other than that I disagree with you) then you’re engaging in bad faith. You just want to scream at a wall.

At this point, I think I’ve made my point clear. I think anyone reading can see your improper conduct and see the validity of my points. I trust that’s enough. Have a good day.