3 ms·
> No, the suggestion is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion. This is not a prerequisite of all discussions.
by benchaney 9y ago
> No, the suggestion is that you cannot have context-free universally true premises for every type discussion.
This is not a prerequisite of all discussions.
> Most of this discussion outrage is based on people on all sides not realising they start from different, inherently subjective premises, and then believe they can build a universally true objective claim on that card house.
This is easy to discover and correct for if both parties approach the discussion without being disingenuous. Building a universally true objective claim is not the only possible end goal of discussion.
- vanderZwan 9y ago> This is not a prerequisite of all discussions. You're literally reversing your position here: > Are you suggesting that some topics can only be discussed if We were not talking about all discussions, we were talking about how some topics don't play nice with this method of having a discussion. > This is easy to discover and correct for if both parties approach the discussion without being disingenuous. You mean like not pretending you were talking about the opposite thing you were actually talking about one comment ago?
- benchaney 9y agoI'm not reversing my position at all. I am arguing that some topics can be discussed with context-free universally true premises and some cannot. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with that. > This is not a prerequisite of all discussions. is equivalent to: Some discussions do not have this as a prerequisite.