4 ms·
I read a lot, but since there's always so much more to read than I could ever handle, I need some way of doing triage. I skim stuff to get a sense of if it's wo
by lordgrenville 7y ago
I read a lot, but since there's always so much more to read than I could ever handle, I need some way of doing triage. I skim stuff to get a sense of if it's worthwhile. The claim that you have to read the whole thing in order to evaluate it reminds me of the claim by some religions that you can't refute them unless you've invested many years learning their sacred scriptures. It absolutely could be a true claim; it just isn't feasible.
- capableweb 7y agoI understand your perspective on it. But I don't think I'm claiming that you can't refute what's in the article, and you certainly don't have to read it all to refute something. But bambataa did not refute anything from the article, just saying that it doesn't contain anything "big", without actually reading it. I think that's a fairly different situation than the one you used as a example. It would more be equal to "You can't criticize religion if you haven't read anything about it", which I think it fine. You have to at least understand what you are critiquing, otherwise you're basing your arguments on something that you could have misunderstood.