3 ms·

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 app

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".
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    Your comment confuses me. It sounds like you actually do not want to discuss these issues (which is fine), and that is different from debating to win on these issues. What I don't get is that while you do not want to explore these issues, why do you take issue with someone who does? When Derek sees that a large collection of people believe in something that he doesn't, he wants to know what they see/believe that he doesn't. If you don't want to, that's OK. But if he does, that should also be OK. > like reconsidering the banning of women from any type of education Your phrasing is telling. I didn't say anything about banning women from education, nor do the people I refer to in those countries advocate for it.
    - qwertox 4y ago
      > to not let women get a college degree There's no reason for me to stick to your exact argument since yours is a subset of a problem which is occurring in several places. For us this issue is settled and there is no reason to undo the progress which has been made. > 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. This implies that you are assuming the perspective of a person which is in favor of a patriarchal society, let's take Afghanistan for example. The people you are referring to there do certainly not want to get convinced of the opposite of their beliefs, they would be giving up (unfair) privileges. There is no value for us assume their point of view, there's nothing to gain but an understanding of which methods could exist in order to try to educate these men to make them understand that those are no human rights. The author implies that he accepts the point of view of those people which he talks to, which is perfectly fine, but in this case, it is unacceptable. There is nothing left to debate. In that case the only thing that can happen is that some courageous women fight for their rights, but we also have to admit that it gets harder and harder the more modern a population becomes. Take Iran for example, not that they have the education issue, but there it's about some freedoms which some citizens want to obtain, but it get's harder because there's the new technology which the oppressors can make use of. Where is the point in debating that murder should be an accepted and not punishable fact of life? You simply can't put a person with me in a room which is pro-murder and have it debate with me that it is ok. There is nothing, absolutely nothing for me to gain from his point of view, with the exception of me maybe getting to understand how a murderer thinks which could be a benefit if I would be a detective, which I am not. There's also nothing for me to gain by having some Taliban with me in a room and he trying to make me understand that women have essentially no rights. There's zero reason for me to even listen to a single word which this person has to say to me in this regard. That is what I'm trying to explain, that some things are not even worthy of debate and if those were assumed that they would be worthy of it, then I certainly would not want to lose those debates when engaging in them. The other person should be the one learning something. There are hills I'm willing to die on. Sometimes the other person is, simply put, a stupid person.

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".
- BeetleB 4y ago
  Your comment confuses me. It sounds like you actually do not want to discuss these issues (which is fine), and that is different from debating to win on these issues. What I don't get is that while you do not want to explore these issues, why do you take issue with someone who does? When Derek sees that a large collection of people believe in something that he doesn't, he wants to know what they see/believe that he doesn't. If you don't want to, that's OK. But if he does, that should also be OK. > like reconsidering the banning of women from any type of education Your phrasing is telling. I didn't say anything about banning women from education, nor do the people I refer to in those countries advocate for it.
  - qwertox 4y ago
    > to not let women get a college degree There's no reason for me to stick to your exact argument since yours is a subset of a problem which is occurring in several places. For us this issue is settled and there is no reason to undo the progress which has been made. > 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. This implies that you are assuming the perspective of a person which is in favor of a patriarchal society, let's take Afghanistan for example. The people you are referring to there do certainly not want to get convinced of the opposite of their beliefs, they would be giving up (unfair) privileges. There is no value for us assume their point of view, there's nothing to gain but an understanding of which methods could exist in order to try to educate these men to make them understand that those are no human rights. The author implies that he accepts the point of view of those people which he talks to, which is perfectly fine, but in this case, it is unacceptable. There is nothing left to debate. In that case the only thing that can happen is that some courageous women fight for their rights, but we also have to admit that it gets harder and harder the more modern a population becomes. Take Iran for example, not that they have the education issue, but there it's about some freedoms which some citizens want to obtain, but it get's harder because there's the new technology which the oppressors can make use of. Where is the point in debating that murder should be an accepted and not punishable fact of life? You simply can't put a person with me in a room which is pro-murder and have it debate with me that it is ok. There is nothing, absolutely nothing for me to gain from his point of view, with the exception of me maybe getting to understand how a murderer thinks which could be a benefit if I would be a detective, which I am not. There's also nothing for me to gain by having some Taliban with me in a room and he trying to make me understand that women have essentially no rights. There's zero reason for me to even listen to a single word which this person has to say to me in this regard. That is what I'm trying to explain, that some things are not even worthy of debate and if those were assumed that they would be worthy of it, then I certainly would not want to lose those debates when engaging in them. The other person should be the one learning something. There are hills I'm willing to die on. Sometimes the other person is, simply put, a stupid person.