4 ms·
That's actually really important. Trying to convince irrational people with rational arguments is kind of a moot endeavor anyway, but to an uninformed observer
by teamhappy 9y ago
That's actually really important. Trying to convince irrational people with rational arguments is kind of a moot endeavor anyway, but to an uninformed observer NASA debating those people may end up looking like whatever they're debating is apparently worth having a debate about.
- gozur88 9y agoAre these people really irrational, or are they just messing with everyone? I agree NASA shouldn't bother with them much, but more because there's no point in engaging with trolls than because they're irredeemably ignorant.
- benjsross26 9y agoTroll or not, if you enter into a debate with someone you only serve to validate their opinion.
- aquadrop 9y agoIt's a joke, if you enter a debate with a joke you just continue a joke. Or that could be a world conspiracy, you know, like the one where Santa and children of the world made adults believe Santa doesn't exist.
- gozur88 9y agoThat's not true. You don't validate someone's opinion by honest debate with them. My point is I don't think it's actually their opinion. You can't have honest debate with someone who's pulling your leg. It just makes you look like you can't take a joke.
- ralusek 9y agoI actually despise this argument, though, because it's increasingly used to prevent legitimate arguments from happening. There is a growing likelihood for people in this country to feel that their ideas are so morally correct, that opposing viewpoints should be ignored or suppressed. Two very common arguments I hear that seek to accomplish this are that a debate should not be had because they don't want to create a "false equivalency" (the argument you're making here), or that they don't want to provide the other party with a "platform." There is no such thing as a false equivalency in debate. In reasoned discourse, foolish ideas should be exposed and dismantled.
- zoul 9y agoThe thing is, is it really reasoned discourse when you dismiss centuries of scientific evidence by pointing to a global evil conspiracy?
- Joe-Z 9y agoYes. Pointing to a global evil conspiracy held up over centuries is a very weak argument, compared to what round-earthers could bring to the table. So, one would assume reasonable people would be convinced by the round-earthers.
- owebmaster 9y agoThe 20th century definition of the atom was dismissed dispite centuries of scientific evidence. Not a flatearther, just saying.
- kowdermeister 9y agoBut there's no need for legitimate arguments when there's nobody at the receiving end. The flat eartheres should be forgotten and ridiculed and we shouldn't provide them attention they can than use to find another receiving poor soul. I can make up any bullcrap and if any I mean any new source picks it up it's free advertising for me regardless how right they are.
- tehwebguy 9y agoExactly - some arguments have already been had. This is one of them.
- teamhappy 9y agoI agree that the whole "no platform" thing is a bad idea. You shouldn't alienate people; it doesn't get you anywhere and it's kind of mean. It's not like I'm against debating things in public either, I just think it's important to know when to stop. For example, let's say NASA had added some easy/intuitive proof to their comment that people can do at home if they want to. That's cool, right? So now you get a irrational response back from the other side. Do you respond? I guess the question is how often can you respond before you end up doing more harm then good.