I just thought I’d share an article by Rossleigh in the AIM network (which can be found here: facebook.com/OpenEmpire), plus my response to that article for others to see (following):
I agree in part, but something you may not have considered & which I’ve experienced so many times, that it’s actually now become an intentional strategy & objective … is this:
- when debating people who hold fervent but false views on any topic, it’s quite common that no amount of evidence, nor any argument, no matter how well reasoned, will ever change their views;
- in other cases you’re debating someone who is being quite disingenuous in their approach, they may well in fact even be fully aware they’re speaking complete nonsense, but it serves their agenda;
- either way, you’ll never convince them, regardless of whether you’re courteous or discourteous, as courtesy has no bearing on their decision;
- in such cases, I have a completely different objective as soon as I discover that I’m facing any such or similar person in debate … I cease trying to convince them of anything (though this may not be apparent from the audience’s perspective), and instead I switch to influencing the audience themselves;
- for within that audience are fence sitters & others who can be convinced AND there are others whom are already onside, but now they become known to me, thus friends & allies;
- from the perspective of those in the audience whom are on the other side of the debate or undecided fence sitters in the debate, some (not all, but some) can be influenced, and one of the things that influences some of them, is when the opposite camp looks completely stupid & embarrassing to be associated with;
- this does take some effort, a lot of well reasoned & sophisticated arguments, a lot of evidence and so on … but it can be done … and strategically speaking, the derision of one’s opponent &/or their views (while not acceptable to the moral compass of all) nonetheless does work very well (I’ve had an immense amount of success with it).
THE JUSTIFICATION for doing so is simple too … it’s in the consequences of not doing so … because the greater the socioeconomic & political power of those who destroy the environment and enslave or otherwise exploit the vulnerabilities of innocent people (or other species for that matter), the greater the negative consequences when left unchecked … and quite frankly there’s no tactic I will not potentially use if the circumstances warrant, such that I can reduce suffering on innocent sentient beings (human or otherwise), and the ecosystems that support them.
I do not quite frankly care one iota if I hurt someone’s feelings, if they’ve already proven their only use to me is saving someone or something else that is worthy of being saved … they’ll get over having been embarrassed & belittled, it might even do them some good and increase the probability they’ll question their brainwashing & ideologies / agendas at some later date, as they become increasingly isolated in their old-world views.
You see what I’m getting at?