2 ms·
> “Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides,” she says, “you don’t understand the issue.” While this may be true for many issues, I don't think
by UncleOxidant 5y ago
> “Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides,” she says, “you don’t understand the issue.”
While this may be true for many issues, I don't think this is true for all issues. Imagine someone saying that just prior to the civil war on the issue of slavery, for example.
- marcodiego 5y agoBetter take: Until you can't passionately make arguments for any side you are biased.
- UncleOxidant 5y agoYes, I'll admit, I'm biased against slavery. Proudly guilty as charged.
- firebaze 5y agoAs much as I despise slavery I'd definitely be interested in understanding the way slavery was rationalized (if it was? if not, how did they cope with the suffering etc.?). We have to understand the principles allowing such an emotional and rational detachment from our set of ethics to prevent something like this happening again. This is quite similar to Germany's handling of the 2nd World War. You cannot just pretend it didn't happen, and you cannot just pretend everybody was devil's child and pure evil. You have to accept that "normal" people may act like absolute beasts, and try to understand why, not ignore it. If we don't, then we'll repeat history. Oh well.
- UncleOxidant 5y agoI think we agree. Understanding why something was rationalized is important (slavery, the holocaust, etc). But being able to make an impassioned argument for those things isn't necessary for that kind of understanding.
- selimthegrim 5y agoLysander Spooner was happy to say that.