4 ms·

I don't get it. There are many sex workers which are forced to do this job, some even under threat. I also don't see an issue using analogies to explain thing

I don't get it. There are many sex workers which are forced to do this job, some even under threat. I also don't see an issue using analogies to explain things. Was the Hindu person poor itself? If so, how has this person dealt with sickness in the family? Any religion is a perfect recipe for peace, it just depends on the fairness and good will of those practicing it. Why should partying not be a good thing as long as it is done in a good balance, and why would an ugly tattoo require an explanation, unless a good story can be told about it? What does any of the above have to do with stupidity? I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing. I just don't understand the spirit in which that article has been written. But then again, "TED speaker" kind of explains it a bit.

aeturnum 4y ago
This does have enormous TED energy. I think the idea is to quickly touch on profiles of people whose world views (apparently?) contradict the authors and then to promote the idea of listening, with an open heart, to people who you believe at the outset are misguided. I think this is because it's common for us to find powerful new insights into how people see the world or feel about things when temporarily we set aside our judgements and understand the internal logic of people we disagree with? That people make more sense once you see things with their eyes, and then also the world makes more sense because those people want things in the world too? I dunno, it's pretty fluffy.
BeetleB 4y ago
> I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing. Serious question: What is the benefit of winning this debate?
- dgfitz 4y ago
  I sure wouldn’t be upset if someone murdered Putin, ideally 11 months ago.
- qwertox 4y ago
  It would be someone presenting me this argument, like one can assume other people were presenting the author their arguments "pro sex work" which the author apparently never considered. Someone presenting me an argument that "murdering someone can be considered a good thing" and them wanting me to lose this argument is something which I would not want to happen. I think the issue in that sentence was the double negative in addition to the lack of definition of who is proposing that argument. But assuming you did not get confused: I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    > I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it. I'm going to be downvoted like crazy for saying this, but it seems you are making these statements with a feeling of safety because you are assuming the vast majority of people reading this comment (i.e. on HN) share your views. Other than that, there is nothing different in your attitude than the folks in countries I have lived in where they would say: > I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not let women get a college degree and marry them off in their teens and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite. They too make these statements because they are in a community where the majority share their views. A better way of knowing you are right is to allow the possibility of being wrong. If you are going to go in with the mindset of "Of course I'm right and I need to win", chances are you will process the other party's arguments very differently compared to "I think I am right but I'd like to see why other people think differently."
    - qwertox 4y ago
      Feels like the Republican vs. Libertarians issue. Like the author accidentally noticed that there are other valid point of views. "Maybe those LGBT groups do make a point and should be accepted and integrated just the way they are." But honestly, there are just facts which are settled in the larger community and trying to negate them just doesn't lead anywhere, when the fruitful discussion is in "the smaller issues". We (as in "we from the West") don't have anything to gain from entertaining thoughts like reconsidering the banning of women from any type of education. That's a settled topic. And luckily in my country the murdering issue is also a settled topic, specially if put in contrast to what is currently happening in Iran. Maybe what triggered me was his title and his cheering about his enlightenment. "The benefits of listening to other people's opinions" vs. "I want to lose every debate".

aeturnum 4y ago

This does have enormous TED energy. I think the idea is to quickly touch on profiles of people whose world views (apparently?) contradict the authors and then to promote the idea of listening, with an open heart, to people who you believe at the outset are misguided. I think this is because it's common for us to find powerful new insights into how people see the world or feel about things when temporarily we set aside our judgements and understand the internal logic of people we disagree with? That people make more sense once you see things with their eyes, and then also the world makes more sense because those people want things in the world too? I dunno, it's pretty fluffy.

BeetleB 4y ago

> I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing. Serious question: What is the benefit of winning this debate?

dgfitz 4y ago
I sure wouldn’t be upset if someone murdered Putin, ideally 11 months ago.
qwertox 4y ago
It would be someone presenting me this argument, like one can assume other people were presenting the author their arguments "pro sex work" which the author apparently never considered. Someone presenting me an argument that "murdering someone can be considered a good thing" and them wanting me to lose this argument is something which I would not want to happen. I think the issue in that sentence was the double negative in addition to the lack of definition of who is proposing that argument. But assuming you did not get confused: I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it. I'm going to be downvoted like crazy for saying this, but it seems you are making these statements with a feeling of safety because you are assuming the vast majority of people reading this comment (i.e. on HN) share your views. Other than that, there is nothing different in your attitude than the folks in countries I have lived in where they would say: > I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not let women get a college degree and marry them off in their teens and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite. They too make these statements because they are in a community where the majority share their views. A better way of knowing you are right is to allow the possibility of being wrong. If you are going to go in with the mindset of "Of course I'm right and I need to win", chances are you will process the other party's arguments very differently compared to "I think I am right but I'd like to see why other people think differently."
  - qwertox 4y ago
    Feels like the Republican vs. Libertarians issue. Like the author accidentally noticed that there are other valid point of views. "Maybe those LGBT groups do make a point and should be accepted and integrated just the way they are." But honestly, there are just facts which are settled in the larger community and trying to negate them just doesn't lead anywhere, when the fruitful discussion is in "the smaller issues". We (as in "we from the West") don't have anything to gain from entertaining thoughts like reconsidering the banning of women from any type of education. That's a settled topic. And luckily in my country the murdering issue is also a settled topic, specially if put in contrast to what is currently happening in Iran. Maybe what triggered me was his title and his cheering about his enlightenment. "The benefits of listening to other people's opinions" vs. "I want to lose every debate".