3 ms·

This is your opinion. And people disagree with you. Presenting opinion as objective facts is counterproductive, no matter how strongly you believe something an

This is your opinion. And people disagree with you. Presenting opinion as objective facts is counterproductive, no matter how strongly you believe something and think it is just. I’m not sure what your approach is to just say it’s a fact and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and their character is wrong. It seems like it will be hard to convince people because this is such an illogical stance. I think it will make people disagree with your position just because of strict logic if you are wrong on this, then it seems more likely that your other positions will be wrong.

wolverine876 3y ago
But we can't reduce everything to equal opinion, an extreme relativism. There's also the conflict between truth and norms - sometimes the norms haven't caught up with the truth. Here are examples, without commenting on Israel and Gaza. Think of climate change: should denialists be given time in a science class? It's a controversial issue; many believe the denialists; but factually it's wrong. Think of Galileo teaching astronomy, when very few believed him. Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? It would be hard not to, but it would be a lie and waste of time.
- prepend 3y ago
  > Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? I think this is the crux. What was Galileo’s goal? I think it was to increase truth and help people. So I think he would need to find ways to engage with and convince people who had factually wrong opinions. It’s certainly ineffective to just not talk to people who don’t agree with you. And imagine how stupid people would have seemed if they posted something in the syllabus that said “Don’t even think of registering if you don’t agree with the fact of a geocentric universe.” I think the point is that there are certainly facts, but we need to have temperance and some level of tolerance to allow for convincing people, and learning for ourselves.
otikik 3y ago
What is the argument for Israel not being an apparheid state? It seems to fit the definition. (As in: "enacting policies of segregation political, social, and economic discrimination against a sector of the population based on race or religion").
- prepend 3y ago
  It’s not necessary to debate all things all of the time. My point isn’t whether Israel is an apartheid state (if you’d like to start that complex discussion join a thread and you’ll be more likely to find people to discuss with you). My point is that just because you feel strongly about something doesn’t make it true. And interjecting your “truth” into unnecessary places is counterproductive in that it doesn’t convince people of your claim.

wolverine876 3y ago

But we can't reduce everything to equal opinion, an extreme relativism. There's also the conflict between truth and norms - sometimes the norms haven't caught up with the truth. Here are examples, without commenting on Israel and Gaza. Think of climate change: should denialists be given time in a science class? It's a controversial issue; many believe the denialists; but factually it's wrong. Think of Galileo teaching astronomy, when very few believed him. Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? It would be hard not to, but it would be a lie and waste of time.

prepend 3y ago
> Should he have tolerated factually wrong opinions? I think this is the crux. What was Galileo’s goal? I think it was to increase truth and help people. So I think he would need to find ways to engage with and convince people who had factually wrong opinions. It’s certainly ineffective to just not talk to people who don’t agree with you. And imagine how stupid people would have seemed if they posted something in the syllabus that said “Don’t even think of registering if you don’t agree with the fact of a geocentric universe.” I think the point is that there are certainly facts, but we need to have temperance and some level of tolerance to allow for convincing people, and learning for ourselves.

otikik 3y ago

What is the argument for Israel not being an apparheid state? It seems to fit the definition. (As in: "enacting policies of segregation political, social, and economic discrimination against a sector of the population based on race or religion").

prepend 3y ago
It’s not necessary to debate all things all of the time. My point isn’t whether Israel is an apartheid state (if you’d like to start that complex discussion join a thread and you’ll be more likely to find people to discuss with you). My point is that just because you feel strongly about something doesn’t make it true. And interjecting your “truth” into unnecessary places is counterproductive in that it doesn’t convince people of your claim.