3 ms·
Okay, on that point, I think it's fine to attack debate opponents as long as your are attacking them 1) on the merits of their points or 2) personal traits that
by 3am 13y ago
Okay, on that point, I think it's fine to attack debate opponents as long as your are attacking them 1) on the merits of their points or 2) personal traits that are germane to the discussion.
The autism/vaccine link has been studied to death, far more than it should have been. It doesn't exist. But people still bring it up. Is that a good faith debate? I feel like the anti-vaccine discussion wants to be treated as an equal on a scientific basis, but is unwilling to do the hard work being aware of and understanding the research on the topic. I think they deserve to be treated with scorn, because a good faith effort to educate them has been happening for the better part of a decade and it has had little effect. Science is a bitch. If you don't get the answer you like, you don't get an unlimited number of do-overs.
EDIT: though, I think you have a legit gripe on GMOs.
- ianstallings 13y agoYeah, even the most compassionate person on the planet has limits to what debate it wants to entertain. I think we should stick to people that truly want to learn the truth and ignore the ones that simply want to muckrake. Unfortunately a lot of people "learn" from pictures with quotes on them posted on a social network, and it just wastes everyone's time. It's up to us to either address it or ignore it. I'd rather ignore it and reach those that can be reached. Because unfortunately I've found that digging into a topic with people that parrot statements without much basis in fact that they lose all interest. How can you convince someone that philosophically believes that the world is out to get them, that they should stop talking and listen? This is the great challenge of science, as always.