4 ms·
> Mockery is not concession. If half the population becomes slightly over than half the population out of random chance (or say, the "ignorant" having a few mo
by argumentum 13y ago
> Mockery is not concession.
If half the population becomes slightly over than half the population out of random chance (or say, the "ignorant" having a few more babies as they are wont to do), mockery would be political concession.
It's far better to convince who you deem ignorant of your own views. This means treating their arguments seriously in the fashion of http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html .
Mockery is unlikely to succeed (as are downvotes), and pretty much fails pg's 1st test.
Your next claim, that "200 years of judicial interpretation and case law" ends the debate fails pg's second test. It's an ad hominem attack, that any disagreement with legal precedent (admittedly strong in this case) should be ignored.
By the same token, legal precedent prior to the civil war dictated that human beings could be property. I presume you are glad that some individuals within that society begged to differ.
Debates should be conducted on first principles and supported by objective evidence. I myself agree with Rayiner in that there is no constitutional dictate either way, only saying that the debate is valid on the grounds of 1st principle regardless of how old the arguments are.
- gnaritas 13y agoKeep your idol worship to yourself; pg is not the authority on how disagreement should work, he's a VC for tech companies, not the authoritative source on how things should be. I happen to agree with the Hitchens approach of mocking religious ignorance and don't give a crap about being reasonable about it. I don't care about pg's tests. Debate is not relevant and only lends status to non-sense. Mockery is the appropriate response to evolution deniers, not reasoned debate. You cannot reason someone out a position they were not reasoned into.
- argumentum 13y agoI don't think you have a clue about Christopher Hitchens (who I actually quoted in this thread: "don't take refuge in the false security of consensus"). Perhaps you should read more of what he wrote, and watch the dozens of debates he conducted with priests, rabbis etc. Of course, you can use ridicule in an argument, but you cannot put yourself above the debate (or you will lose).
- gnaritas 13y agoPerhaps it's you who don't have a clue. Perhaps you should read more of what he wrote, and watch the dozens of debates he conducted with priests, rabbis etc, because I already have. Listen to the man himself[1] on the importance of mocking religion. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3sFg8-1qTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3sFg8-1qTw