3 ms·
I think there’s an interesting difference between debating something logical vs. empirical. But maybe I’m just not seeing how they’re actually the same. Debati
by Waterluvian 2y ago
I think there’s an interesting difference between debating something logical vs. empirical. But maybe I’m just not seeing how they’re actually the same.
Debating a flat earther is usually a waste of time. They’re not seeking resolution and they’ve always got “well that’s just part of the conspiracy” to fall back on.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to say “oh well 1x4 = 4 is just part of the conspiracy.”
Though I guess there’s also the even more frustrating endeavour of arguing semantics. I’m right because I’ve redefined how these operators work. And I’ll hand wave a reason for why my redefinition is more correct.
- felipec 2y agoThe point of debates it not to convince your interlocutor. Not a single debate in history has ended in the other side changing their position. The point is to convince the audience, and if you think no audience would consider the notion of a flat Earth possible, you underestimate human stupidity. Everything should be up for debate, otherwise ideas become -- as John Stuart Mill called them: dead dogma.