3 ms·
Even the devil's advocate [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate ] is supposed to cite facts and re
by PavlovsCat 7y ago
Even the devil's advocate [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate ] is supposed to cite facts and reason properly -- not claim a falsehood in support of the devil, which misrepresenting the article is.
You can't just precede anything with "just playing devil's advocate for a moment" and make it immune from scrutiny, that's the intellectual equivalent of "just a prank". From the WP article, emphasis mine:
> explore the thought further using a valid reasoning
- baddox 7y agoI welcome scrutiny, and I disagree with this particular scrutiny.
- PavlovsCat 7y agoI could have just done the same, and just say "I disagree" without making an argument, but that's not really much of a discussion is it.