3 ms·

"Wow, geez, the Republican party is so one sided, like, everyone there is a Republican!" That is such an utterly meaningless argument. You can use that argumen

"Wow, geez, the Republican party is so one sided, like, everyone there is a Republican!" That is such an utterly meaningless argument. You can use that argument to challenge literally any well established fact regardless of it's merits. It is by this argument that increasingly extreme viewpoints have entered the political mainstream. E.g., "It's a problem that everyone in this room so one-sidedly believes the Holocaust is real! It's about time us Holocaust-deniers get a seat at the table, in fact, it'd only be fair for us to have HALF the seats at the table!"

manigandham 8y ago
That's not what I said though, is it? Arguing against a made-up statement is indeed meaningless. Academia is not a political party, and has all kinds of people, so being so one-sided politically is a valid concern. There's also a big difference between beliefs on issues and historical facts. Facts, by definition, cannot be debated as they are objective truths.
- notSupplied 8y ago
  You just repeated the claim I am arguing against: that the mere one-sidedness of a group of people's beliefs is in itself a problem without discussing the merits of those beliefs, for which I constructed the example of "the mere onesidedness of Holocaust believers is problematic and equal representation from deniers should be introduced" If you've got a problem with beliefs commonly held within academia then debate them on their merits and not on the mere fact that some group of people seem to have consensus on something.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    As stated, there's a difference between beliefs and facts which you are conflating. You cannot debate facts like the Holocaust. The OP was saying SJWs were a vocal minority where I claimed otherwise. If you're also saying that they're widespread beliefs then it looks like you're just agreeing with me. The actual problems with those beliefs was not the topic of this thread.

manigandham 8y ago

That's not what I said though, is it? Arguing against a made-up statement is indeed meaningless. Academia is not a political party, and has all kinds of people, so being so one-sided politically is a valid concern. There's also a big difference between beliefs on issues and historical facts. Facts, by definition, cannot be debated as they are objective truths.

notSupplied 8y ago
You just repeated the claim I am arguing against: that the mere one-sidedness of a group of people's beliefs is in itself a problem without discussing the merits of those beliefs, for which I constructed the example of "the mere onesidedness of Holocaust believers is problematic and equal representation from deniers should be introduced" If you've got a problem with beliefs commonly held within academia then debate them on their merits and not on the mere fact that some group of people seem to have consensus on something.
- manigandham 8y ago
  As stated, there's a difference between beliefs and facts which you are conflating. You cannot debate facts like the Holocaust. The OP was saying SJWs were a vocal minority where I claimed otherwise. If you're also saying that they're widespread beliefs then it looks like you're just agreeing with me. The actual problems with those beliefs was not the topic of this thread.