Honest Debate: Discussing contentious issues with the intent of increasing knowledge/understanding on finer points and accept the possibility of being wrong on at least some points
Dishonest Debate: Means to end of raising personal profile. Thus, only useful when "punching up"
There are of course other forms of dishonest debate, much of which can be self-evident from the forums or rules behind the debate.
Not to mention there are plenty of dishonest *people* - self-proclaimed authorities who resent the indignity of having to justify their positions and ignorant/illiterate gadflies who aren't worth people's time.
Personally, I prefer conversations over debates because they're less contentious and I've found more good comes out of them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Since it came up recently, here are my current opinions on anonymous criticisms and doxxing. I say "current" because like all my opinions they're subject to change.
These are general opinions independent of any specific person, situation, person, or position taken.
2. First, I'm generally not a fan of anonymous criticisms due to the lack of accountability. I say this having seen anonymous accounts unfairly criticize and even slander people without meaningful consequence.
3. At the same time, I acknowledge why people at times feel the need to criticize anonymously due to the subject and/or temperament of those targeted. An asymmetry of power can also result in an asymmetry of accountability as well.
1. I don't know if this came up in the fight over calling people "Dr", but please read this from 2017 discussing Seb Gorka and Jill Biden web.archive.org/web/2020121522…
Today's topic: Rejoicing over and Praying for the Downfall of the Wicked
2. When this issue comes up (e.g. Osama bin Ladin or Trump's Covid-19), I find people tend to emphasize certain canonical sources in order to prove a particular point. Unsurprisingly, the range of perspectives attested in Biblical and Rabbinic literature complicates matters.
3. Disclaimer: I compare the reactions to bin Ladin and Trump not to equate their relative evils, but to assert that for those who believe Trump is evil, the same ethical and religious principles that would apply to the death of one ought to apply to the death of the other.
1. I want to share a bit of personal news, which may hopefully help brighten your day a little.
2. One month ago, a friend of mine from Nachlaot woke up in the middle of the night to the sound of two kittens crying. Someone had left them in a cardboard box by the dumpster next to her apartment.
3. My friend sends me a message and the above and attached videos and asks if my wife and I could take them in. (Friend already has two cats, one of them being a rescue and couldn't handle more).
1. A very quick message before I sign off for #RoshHashanah
According to rabbinic tradition, the High Holidays are an auspicious time for introspection and repentance. One of the major themes of Rosh Hashana is the recognition of God as King and the ultimate judge.
2. I think a reason why this is emphasized at the beginning of the High Holidays is that it instills a sense of moral humility
3. If we think of ourselves as the arbiters of morality, we can justify virtually any action and frame any sin as being righteous such that we don't even feel we *need* to repent for any action.
Here's another good example where I think politics-as-religion comes into play. When the world doesn't line up with your ideology, and your predictions don't come true, do you reframe your ideology or blame other people for not doing what they were "supposed" to do.
In other words, for some people, political ideology is just as infallibly sacred as any religious dogma.
What's interesting is to compare the apologetics when their respective dogmas are challenged by reality.