3 ms·

How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views? > If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; a

How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views? > If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is that not deceptive? The mere thought that this is what you expect says, "I'm not a rational person." How does anyone respond to that? There's nothing to be said to you. You've made no indication (from the many comments I've read) that you're prepared to have your mind changed or that you're open to other points of view. You have come to an irrational conclusion and that's it. You're finished. Everyone else (that doesn't agree) is a "jerk" and can take a hike.

ikeboy 11y ago
Perhaps you should doubt the rationality of your own views, now that you've realized you don't have any arguments for them. I can give arguments for almost all of my beliefs, except for perhaps very basic ones (things like "I exist", and even those, I generally can give reasons why, just not full arguments). If you realize you have no arguments, you should ask yourself why you believe something and see if you get any answers. Which part of my comments suggested to you that I'm not willing to hear out other views? I've tried to lay out my arguments at length. Are there any premises I assume that you disagree with, or are there steps I take that are logically unjustified? And specifically, why is my claim irrational? It's mostly a moral claim, so to be irrational it must conflict with other moral claims I hold, right? (Also, it's a bit weird that you seem to have a dichotomy between "rational" and "irrational" people; nobody is perfectly rational, and classifying specific arguments as rational/irrational is often more useful. Especially when it leads you to refuse to argue for a position on the dubious grounds that they aren't interested in hearing it. And perhaps reflect on the fact that by writing off a differing position as irrational without bothering to rebut it, you're creating the bubble you accuse me of being in.
ikeboy 11y ago
I'd be interested in a robust defense of the claim that refusing to have a trigger warning, in the context of this post, is not deceptive. The arguments I see for not having one are: too few people would care so it's not worth inconveniencing the many for the few; there's already informed consent and so it's useless; and the talk is not harmful to anyone. (I think I had another minor one in mind but can't recall right now.) 1 is possible, but is not the one made by OP. I've argued against the premise of 2 (which the OP did make); if you have a more deontological worldview, you might want to frame this as the student's "own fault" for not realizing, but I generally don't blame people for being dumb (in the sense of insisting on them bearing the consequences of being dumb), instead asking which course of action yields the best consequences. In this case, if we assume informed freedom of association is a value, then adding information is a benefit. 3 would be a good defense if done well, but again, isn't the OP. It would actually be the best example of "I'm not a jerk"-type answers. But it's not immediately obvious how we can view something that bothered someone as not harming them. At best, you'd probably need to invoke Christian beliefs and go back to "informed consent" as above. Presumably you concede that Christians shouldn't do this to outsiders, and so the issue is about what counts as informed consent.

ikeboy 11y ago

Perhaps you should doubt the rationality of your own views, now that you've realized you don't have any arguments for them. I can give arguments for almost all of my beliefs, except for perhaps very basic ones (things like "I exist", and even those, I generally can give reasons why, just not full arguments). If you realize you have no arguments, you should ask yourself why you believe something and see if you get any answers. Which part of my comments suggested to you that I'm not willing to hear out other views? I've tried to lay out my arguments at length. Are there any premises I assume that you disagree with, or are there steps I take that are logically unjustified? And specifically, why is my claim irrational? It's mostly a moral claim, so to be irrational it must conflict with other moral claims I hold, right? (Also, it's a bit weird that you seem to have a dichotomy between "rational" and "irrational" people; nobody is perfectly rational, and classifying specific arguments as rational/irrational is often more useful. Especially when it leads you to refuse to argue for a position on the dubious grounds that they aren't interested in hearing it. And perhaps reflect on the fact that by writing off a differing position as irrational without bothering to rebut it, you're creating the bubble you accuse me of being in.

ikeboy 11y ago

I'd be interested in a robust defense of the claim that refusing to have a trigger warning, in the context of this post, is not deceptive. The arguments I see for not having one are: too few people would care so it's not worth inconveniencing the many for the few; there's already informed consent and so it's useless; and the talk is not harmful to anyone. (I think I had another minor one in mind but can't recall right now.) 1 is possible, but is not the one made by OP. I've argued against the premise of 2 (which the OP did make); if you have a more deontological worldview, you might want to frame this as the student's "own fault" for not realizing, but I generally don't blame people for being dumb (in the sense of insisting on them bearing the consequences of being dumb), instead asking which course of action yields the best consequences. In this case, if we assume informed freedom of association is a value, then adding information is a benefit. 3 would be a good defense if done well, but again, isn't the OP. It would actually be the best example of "I'm not a jerk"-type answers. But it's not immediately obvious how we can view something that bothered someone as not harming them. At best, you'd probably need to invoke Christian beliefs and go back to "informed consent" as above. Presumably you concede that Christians shouldn't do this to outsiders, and so the issue is about what counts as informed consent.