Debate *does* allow us to sharpen our ideas. It *is* a tool for doing that.
It's a *tool.* Which means it has a certain usefulness.
But making a tool into a principle—saying 'we must always use this tool'—is a mistake.
Because every tool can be put to good or bad use.
It's a *tool.* Which means it has a certain usefulness.
But making a tool into a principle—saying 'we must always use this tool'—is a mistake.
Because every tool can be put to good or bad use.
(in case you missed, the person in the OP screencap is replying to this thread)
So here's the thing about debate or discussion. It's *good*.
It's just not more important than justice.
It's very VERY important that we exercise wisdom in an age of manufactured confusion.
I'd define 'wisdom' as 'knowing which things are more important than other things.'
It's just not more important than justice.
It's very VERY important that we exercise wisdom in an age of manufactured confusion.
I'd define 'wisdom' as 'knowing which things are more important than other things.'
My observation would be bad-intentioned people don't create new bad corrupt things.
Rather, they corrupt things that are already good, by promoting them above their station, or demoting them below their station.
Rather, they corrupt things that are already good, by promoting them above their station, or demoting them below their station.
Example: Some people would have it that border security is more important than human dignity
Or that property rights are more important than human rights
Or that wealth is more important than equal standing under the law
Notice that none of these things are bad things.
Or that property rights are more important than human rights
Or that wealth is more important than equal standing under the law
Notice that none of these things are bad things.
So, to bring it back around to debate: Debate is good.
It's good.
But it's a tool. It's function is to sharpen ideas, to arrive at the best one. But it's a two-handed saw. For debate to work, *both* people have to want to use debate for that purpose.
We don't have that.
It's good.
But it's a tool. It's function is to sharpen ideas, to arrive at the best one. But it's a two-handed saw. For debate to work, *both* people have to want to use debate for that purpose.
We don't have that.
If we want to have a debate, we need to think about the idea we're sharpening. We need to think about the framework we're accepting by having the debate.
An extreme example: I'm not going to debate how to best build a death camp.
An extreme example: I'm not going to debate how to best build a death camp.
Why wouldn't I debate how to best build a death camp? Because the only thing there is to say is "there should never be a death camp."
But what if the other person has a lot of *reasons* why we might want to have a death camp? Aren't I stifling debate?
Of course not. The debate is inappropriate.
Of course not. The debate is inappropriate.
If I debate the whos and wheres and whats of the death camp, the pros and cons—efficiencies and laws and risks and costs and benefits, and so on—then I've already accepted an unacceptable premise.
Moreover, when somebody brings an unacceptable premise to a debate, they aren't using it to sharpen ideas, or to be persuaded. They're using the debate to defeat.
To demolish.
To destroy.
To win.
It's not about the reasons for the idea. It's about victory.
To demolish.
To destroy.
To win.
It's not about the reasons for the idea. It's about victory.
Again, we need to use wisdom. What are the most imporant things.
I'd say it's this: Every human being is a unique and irreplacable work of art, carrying insurpassable worth.
Let's start there.
I'd say it's this: Every human being is a unique and irreplacable work of art, carrying insurpassable worth.
Let's start there.
If somebody's idea is premised in the idea that life must be earned, that we don't all belong to each other, that violence redeems, there's nothing else really to say. It's an unacceptable premise.
We're not going to talk about how some people don't deserve healthcare.
We're not going to talk about how some people don't deserve healthcare.
We're not going to debate which people deserve to have enough food to eat, and which don't.
We're not debating whether or not Flint gets clean water.
We're not going to debate what situations call for torture.
We're not going to debate who can go into what bathroom.
We're not debating whether or not Flint gets clean water.
We're not going to debate what situations call for torture.
We're not going to debate who can go into what bathroom.
People get very upset when you won't give them a debate. They understand that they're being judged.
But, if you focus on the unsurpassable worth of people, on the fact that we belong to one another, that life isn't earned, then some people will be judged fairly as undeserving.
But, if you focus on the unsurpassable worth of people, on the fact that we belong to one another, that life isn't earned, then some people will be judged fairly as undeserving.
No unacceptable premises considered.
If we are debating unacceptable premises, we've already lost by debating. AND we're making the subjects of the debate live in a world where their lives are subject to debate.
No.
Very simply, politely if politeness is appropriate: no.
If we are debating unacceptable premises, we've already lost by debating. AND we're making the subjects of the debate live in a world where their lives are subject to debate.
No.
Very simply, politely if politeness is appropriate: no.
People with bad intentions will also point out how the rest of us have unrealistic goals. Difficult to achieve. Complex in the extreme.
Probably true. Solving real problems usually is all that and more.
How to achieve those things should be the topic of our debates.
Probably true. Solving real problems usually is all that and more.
How to achieve those things should be the topic of our debates.
After all, beside all the other bad reasons to get caught debating unacceptable premises, it's a waste of time.
We've got work to do.
We've got work to do.
A good example: bad-intentioned people talking about civility do not care about civility. They want to utilize civility to accomplish their intentions.
And civility is a good thing.
Use wisdom. Understand which things are more important than civility.
And civility is a good thing.
Use wisdom. Understand which things are more important than civility.
We don't hate civility. Civility is great. But civility isn't always an appropriate tool.
If we don't use wisdom and discernment, bad-intentioned people will act in bad faith, and will hack our own good qualities by putting them to inappropriate use.
If we don't use wisdom and discernment, bad-intentioned people will act in bad faith, and will hack our own good qualities by putting them to inappropriate use.
Again, a bad-intentioned person doesn't care one bit about equal rights for gays or anybody else. But he *will* utilize a growing public consensus that gays and others deserve equal treatment to promote his own bad intent.
Demonstrated perfectly here.
Demonstrated perfectly here.
You'll see it again and again and again and again, a person acting in bad faith deliberately utilizing a good thing that they don't actually care about, in order to confuse and distort the issue for people who do care about that good thing.
We need wisdom and discernment.
We need wisdom and discernment.
Ironically, saying “you can’t tell what is more important without debate” is an absolutist statement.
Debate is a useful tool in achieving wisdom, but not the only tool.
Nor is every debate worth having.
Nor does every debater seek wisdom.
Debate is a useful tool in achieving wisdom, but not the only tool.
Nor is every debate worth having.
Nor does every debater seek wisdom.
