4 ms·
> It's a first principles thing. This is fair. You can't really have a good debate with anyone if you don't agree on first principles. It think that's part of
by mapontosevenths 8mo ago
> It's a first principles thing.
This is fair. You can't really have a good debate with anyone if you don't agree on first principles. It think that's part of the problem with the worlds polarization these days.
We have this fundamental disconnect between 'the greatest good for the most people' on one side and 'the greatest good for MY people' on the other. It's literally two different answer to the question of life having value. IE - "They all have the same value." vs "Some are more valuable than others."
When you have disagreements that fundamental you will never find common ground. The zero-sum view of the universe is fundamentally incompatible with the other view.
The only way to stop it from becoming a thought terminating cliche when it comes up (in it's many forms) is to explicitly call it out as what it is - A fundamental an insolvable disagreement that can only be met with some level of compromise.
- AnimalMuppet 8mo agoMaybe? I mean, if I believe that all lives have value, and I'm talking to someone who believes that their peoples' lives are more valuable, then I can go further back. Why do any lives have any value? What's your basis for saying that any life has value? All right, starting from there, can you keep that without also extending it to those who are not part of your group? Note well that this may not work to persuade them. But you can at least have the conversation.
- mapontosevenths 8mo ago> Note well that this may not work to persuade them. But you can at least have the conversation. It is noble to try. I suspect that you will always fail, unless the other person is uncommonly reasonable. Those views of life are the result of having vastly different experiences and backgrounds, and aren't something that typically changes after reaching adulthood.