3 ms·

> he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him why would anyone? if it's not a discussion it's a battle of ideologies and

• grenoire 8y ago
  Case in point, you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue. You don't have to agree with everything someone says, and doing so would be philosophical suicide by the very definition of it. Just be a little more open on what you can take out his ideas, and if you're not interested in a specific subset of his subjects such as religion or identity politics or his diet (as one of the students in the audience asked him a question on), then just skip that. You be the judge, but be reasonable in your judgement.
  • dekken_ 8y ago
    > you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue I did no such thing how dare you
    • turc1656 8y ago
      You didn't literally say those words but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement. You said it was a battle of ideologies. Which means he is there as a representative of an ideology. That would make him an ideologue, based purely on logical flow from your statement. If that's not what you believe, then you shouldn't label the discussions he partakes in as ideological battles and instead brand them simply as honest political discourse with guests of varying viewpoints.
      • dekken_ 8y ago
        > You didn't literally say those words True. > but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement False.
• tome 8y ago
  I suspect, by "why would anyone", you were referring to him tolerating rather than people having proper discourse.
  • dekken_ 8y ago
    Why would anyone tolerate not having proper discourse. In full.