It is incoherent to expect me to be able to name people who disagree with me reasonably on issues & values. When I find someone's objection to my reasoning reasonable, I change my own mind on the issue & we are no longer in disagreement.
-
-
In this case, my argument is that intersectionality - politics plus postmodern theory - is the wrong way to address social injustice. If someone comes along & makes a well-reasoned argument that it is the right way to address social injustice, I'll no longer make that argument.
Show this thread -
People occasionally say to me they find me reasonable but often disagree with me. I take this to mean that they think me a reasonable person generally & so follow me but that they think there are some exceptions to this. I doubt they mean 'I think you're reasonable to be wrong.'
Show this thread -
Similarly, I follow people because I admire their reasoning but then find myself in disagreement with one idea of theirs - God exists, national healthcare is a bad idea, Brexit is a good idea. I still think of them as reasonable but with some exceptions. This is almost everyone
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the abortion debate comes close. I think there are some anti-abortion advocates that are being perfectly reasonable, but are starting from a premise I just don't believe to be true - existence of a soul, or human life beginning at conception.
-
Curious in your use of terms here - are you saying the soul and human life are interchange concepts?
-
No, just two examples of premises I don't agree with that are used to support anti-abortion argumentation. I do think they are used relatively interchangeably by the people who take them as axiomatic, though.
-
Ok well I'm glad you think those who belief life and/or soul is at conception are reasonable
-
I don't find arguments from faith to be very convincing - which those are, as unfalsifiable claims. I don't think that people who take things on faith are stupid or illogical, but I do think faith-based claims should not be used as the basis of policy.
-
Sure, although there are scientific positions for life at conception, including that it's the empirical, developmental beginning of every person, and that the zygote has a unique DNA, the signature of individuality, and interpreted even by some secularists as a unique life
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Are there not some arguments where there's two equally ethical/correct but totally different solutions? Like (to pick a non-ethics example) the ecological solution to "this landscape has a niche for a large, herd-living grazer that reproduces slowly" can be a kangaroo or a deer
-
(I admit, I'm struggling to think of a good ethical example off the top of my head)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
When you agree your disagreement traces back to the interpretation of some data, or an underlying assumption about human nature, to "agree to disagree" with a shared humility about your answer is a step forward, and what I aim for.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.