Conversation

Replying to and
Another similar in spirit example is legislation. Left and right rarely work together. They just move their policy agendas forward when they have majority. Consistently losing ideologies drop out of the legislation game rather than accepting the winning view.
1
Replying to and
broader point is finite vs. infinite game (play to win/play to continue the game). Consequential debates are almost by definition infinite game. There is no ultimate victory or defeat. Only tactical ones. There's only staying or quitting longer term.
1
Replying to and
Likewise I think it's your position that needs examples 😂. If I squint all examples appear to fit my model at least approximately. Marital disagreements are a good clear example. Most are resolved by one spouse deciding to accept without conceding. 'This too shall pass'
1
Replying to and
Well, I wasn't the one making the original assertion, so the onus is perhaps on you. In marital disagreements I prefer to defer, because mine are (happily enough) not terribly serious or consequential, which I gather was the topic ;)
1
Replying to and
I don't buy that burden of proof heuristic. It's on the side making the tighter claim. I've provided a few but I see no clear examples of yours yet. Climate change might be one soon, where skeptics are won over by accumulating evidence
Replying to and
You don't buy the idea that broad assertions should come with proof? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regarding examples, I think you're mistaking absence of negatives from my side as presence of positive from yours. PS On climate change, here's hoping, aye!