Arguably harmful information is also arguably not harmful. Bias is a given for any work, why is that a problem to you? If there’s misinformation in the book - I’m all ears. Is it pervasive?
> Arguably harmful information is also arguably not harmful.
I can acknowledge without aversion that it may be possible that it is sometimes harmful, and sometimes not. Can you do the same?
>Bias is a given for any work, why is that a problem to you?
Bias and misinformation leads to delusion, delusion leads to disharmony, disharmony leads to suffering, at least often. I consider concern for the well being of others to be a good thing in an absolute sense...but this is a bias on my part, "each to his own", and enjoy the consequences Mother Nature rewards us. But please let's also consider how our fellow humans are making out in the lot they were born into.
> If there’s misinformation in the book - I’m all ears.
Is this to say that you are able and willing to consider all sound arguments, without bias?
As for Rosling: I think if people considered the entirety of his message things would be better....as I recall, he was an advocate of international aid rather than immigration and refugee policies saving some of the people from underdeveloped countries? To me, this seems like a better approach for several reasons.
> Is it pervasive?
I believe so, I think young Wittgenstein and many others are objectively correct, and that this can be objectively proven with virtually unlimited examples, because language is a fundamental building block of reality. The alternative, that all the people involved in disagreements derived from language are joking or something and I'm not in on it, is just too much for me.
