By
admin |
Aug 1 2014 12:12 AM
I was reading through this article by Dawkins recently:
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/are-there-emotional-no-go-areas-where-logic-dare-not-show-its-face/
... and was quite interested to hear his displeasure towards those who wouldn't discuss certain taboo subjects - in his case, he used rape and pedophilia to show a basic logical truth, but a lot of people didn't accept it just because of the examples he used (the irony, as many pointed out, was that Dawkins himself was actually abused as a child).
The reason I bring this up is that I've noticed this myself on occasion. Most recently, the subject of circumcision had both parties to the debate unhappy with even discussing such a subject. Are there certain contexts which our society should avoid arguing about because of current social values? Or is it good to have debate even about things that might be really hurtful or offensive?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin:
I've thought about this myself. In several of my recent debates I've actually deleted whole sections because I felt that the examples I've used, while apt, would not have been received well. We had a fairly frank discussion in our god squad group that had the potential to get a bit real as well. I censored myself there too.
While this frustrates me in REAL debates about real topics, I accept it in this kind of forum because here it's as much about winning the judges over with your personality as it is about having the actual logical argument.
It frustrates me no end when it happens in real life though. Especially in discussions among friends.
admin:
I'm completely with Dawkins on this point. People assume you are trying to emotionally charge things, but it's really much simpler.
It's trying to avoid a pointless discussion about whether the fallacy is actually true in this case.
X does not imply Y, but if your opponent/listener believes in both X and Y that will not be immediately obvious to them. (if they understood the fallacy you wouldn't be giving them a counter-example at all)
So you pick Y such that it is highly unlikely your opponent/listener will agree with it. Raping children, Nazis, etc... so that they have to either abandon X or admit no implication exists. i.e. deal with the fallacy.
Back when I debated on debate.org, I never felt comfortable debating serious, or taboo topics. Even making the arguments could result in a huge dramafest. Imagine the common man's reaction in real life.
I never actually was opposed to discussing circumcision. I was angry because I thought I had an impossible resolution.
By
admin |
Sep 13 2014 2:42 PM Blackflag:
That's good. If I wasn't already debating you so much already I'd do a circumcision debate with you and take the "impossible" side lol.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!