3 ms·
I actually despise this argument, though, because it's increasingly used to prevent legitimate arguments from happening. There is a growing likelihood for peop
by ralusek 9y ago
I 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.
- gjulianm 9y agoI always like the bridge example here: how would you react to someone trying to convince you that you should jump off a bridge? Reasoning with them implies that you accept that they might be right (it’s not a debate otherwise). The appropriate response would be laughing at them, or ignoring them, or something similar.
- owebmaster 9y agoLaughing at them is better than ignore, this is what OP means I guess.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago> In reasoned discourse, foolish ideas should be exposed and dismantled. You might have a problem with ensuring the discourse is reasoned in the first place. For anything important enough, at least one side is likely to use every sleazy trick in the book, from logical fallacies to plain slander. What may have began as a search for truth (or facts) can quickly turn into a dirty rhetoric match. In such a situation, the outcome mostly depends on debating skills.