There have to be honest conversations about potentially dangerous beliefs. As the degree of imminence of the associated danger grows it can be more responsible to move those conversations behind closed doors but it's practically never valid to force them behind closed doors.https://twitter.com/webdevMason/status/1145373718111125504 …
-
-
You can choose consistent norms (or, rather, reject norms that lead to inconsistencies)—but you can't choose ones that maximize that probability. If you want to go with historically useful norms, then you have to pick an era! Pre- or post-Whewell, e.g.?
-
Why can I not? I would start my argument with Habermas, but probably have to re-read, because my mind is different from the one that read him. The classical specification of dialectic seems fine to me, it roughly describes the algorithm that I approximate within my own mind.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
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.