Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I think what I try to do (and Corsi too) is get some actual foundation to an argument before continuing on down a path which really just turns into partisan bickering along parallel but never intersecting lines of attack. Not to say that isn't a good thing sometimes.
|
Essentially, yes - I frequently end up wasting my time in an effort to not waste my time on here. Most people really, really don't want this sort of common starting point. If you can't even agree on the rules of the game (e.g. "making logical sense matters") then there's no point in having a conversation at all. You won't get anywhere useful.
People seem determined to avoid engaging the merits of any argument because (it often seems to me) that they think acknowledging that someone else's view
has any merits is somehow conceding their point to some degree.
The abortion issue is the perfect example - one side says, "we value life; you want to make it easier to murder unborn children", the other side says, "you hate women, want to force your regressive religious views on other people and control their bodies." At no point does the discussion focus on any actual relevant points; e.g. when is it acceptable for the state to place limits on peoples' control over their own bodily health, or when does moral personhood begin. Which, yeah, are philosophical questions, and yet they're literally
all that matters in deciding who's on the right side of the issue.
People want to skip that step and simply hold their view, be it pro-life or pro-choice, as sacred dogma that's true inherently and need not be questioned or examined ever. But if you care about logic, reason and evidence, you have to have
actual defensible reasons for believing things, even if thinking about them is hard.