slomobileAdmin t1_j9qr7h0 wrote
Reply to comment by SmallShoes_BigHorse in LPT: When debating or arguing with someone and it’s going nowhere, ask them, “What evidence would it take for you to consider that you’re wrong?” If they say “Nothing,” then it’s time to end the conversation. by blowfishmo
Um. Not really. Even if the discussion is only about opinions, especially if it is only about opinions, an unwillingness to even consider changing your opinion makes it a pointless discussion. Facts are not subject to change by discussion.
There is technically a new world order any time new world leaders are elected and change policy. I'll accept that as fact, though it isn't very meaningful to me. If you ascribe different meaning to "new world order", particularly outlandish conspiracy, I might need you to clarify whether our shared words have shared meaning. I may then need to retract a previous statement, assume you have a poor understanding of what facts are, and back away slowly as you shout at me.
That is slightly different from being unwilling to consider that I am wrong. It is the regretful acknowledgement that from now on, anything presented as fact by you will no longer receive the benefit of doubt. Your facts are tainted. I may however accept the same facts if presented by someone else in a careful, self consistent way that agrees with my observations and avoids common fallacies.
SmallShoes_BigHorse t1_j9sy2pb wrote
Yea, that's why I said 'can serve a purpose' there's no guarantee that it will, but at least there's a possibility.
I had an old colleague who loved talking about globalists, NWO, Trump/Biden and just loved tossing out bait-headlines and then the 'discussion' would begin. And at one point I asked if there was anything that had the potential to change his mind, he said no. And I never engaged in discussion with him again. Because he will always be right in his POV.
Because he has decided his POV is the correct one, you can be sure he doesn't fact check his own facts but rather assumes that everything that supports his POV is correct. Which means that even though I could be persuaded to leave my standpoint, I can't trust anything that he says, since he'll swallow anything with the right shape.
bestaquaneer t1_j9sixyo wrote
Exactly. Like Trump could scream at me that COVID-19 is fake until he’s blue in the face, and I wouldn’t believe him even if it was weeks later. A medical doctor, who calmly explained with scientific evidence that COVID-19 is fake, could get me to believe them. Sure, Trump was right, but the way the information was presented and from what I know about the person that presented it, I didn’t believe him.
(I would like to clarify that I don’t actually think COVID is fake. I know better.)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments