It's not that I'm trying to impose my views upon him. I'm just trying to point out what I feel is his faulty reasoning (and, I suppose, what I perceive to be his intellectual encroachment, for want of a better description, into the private matters of others that have no bearing on him and that have nothing to do with him) in the hope of convincing him to look at things from another perspective, but I don't think I'm infallible, in spite of my alias.
Appreciating the rules of logic is kind of fundamental to any serious, rigourous and critical debate, but he has since explicitly acknowledged he has no interest in logic or reason. I'm not saying that I'm faultless myself nor, as a human being, am I immune from "irrational" impulses or emotions, but I would like to think I wouldn't willingly eschew logic in debate. I just find his a peculiar admission, especially since he's happy to put forth some fairly contentious and provocative views. He's well aware of their nature, so what was he expecting? As far as I'm concerned, he has asserted his views merely rhetorically without actually demonstrating their validity. But, sure, he's entitled to all that. It's just hard to get my head around it, but, as you suggest, maybe it's unreasonable of me to assume that people would welcome the logical method or would think it important that they are able to defend views they put forward on a discussion forum.
I don't think I'm particularly militant on such matters anyway. Maybe I come across differently here as it's a forum specifically for discussion and debate, so, no surprise, I happen to be involved in such pursuits more often than not here, but, in real life, I'm perfectly happy to respect, for example, my mother's Catholic faith (even though I, at heart, find the notion of such blind faith irrational) without feeling the need to challenge or lecture her on it. I never have once in my life done so, out of respect, and it in no way makes me think any less of her for it. I don't have much time for the lecturing of the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Maher and the "New Atheists" either. The main reason I'm pursuing mypost on this particular matter, however, is because there's surely an invitation to others to discuss your views implicit in putting them forward on a public discussion forum. I wouldn't persist, nor would I even have initiated conversation with him, had he not volunteered for the debate.
In terms of me thinking that my belief might be right being enough. Not that I necessarily would think my belief is inherently "the right one" anyway, but it's not quite that simple. As far as I'm concerned, the sort of views that mypost has been expressing, as well as being built on suspect incoherent reasoning, can have poisonous social repercussions. He's endorsing discrimination against homosexuals. I also sensed a hint of racism/xenophobia. He's explicitly bringing other people's lives and private business into it by endorsing negative treatment against them. I wouldn't feel as compelled to challenge him if I thought his views were purely innocent in their possible effect or ambitions. It's important such views are challenged.
You have great faith in humanity!
Would you have told agitators for great social change through history (say, those advocating the abolition of slavery, segregation or apartheid) to just wait it out - to just put up with intolerance - until the majority came round to their way of thinking though? Who knows what the world might still be like if everyone kept their more progressive or radical ideas to themselves without challenging the status quo?
Bookmarks