07-17-2014, 09:20 AM
|
 |
Necrum Burial Grounds Moderator
Our worst member ever
|
|
: Jun 2003
: Them dark fucking woods
: 12,320
Rep Power: 41
|
|
:
In my experience most political conversations either rocket through topics at a pace faster than I can keep up with and contribute to, or they end with everyone reaching the conclusions they wanted to reach from the start without benefiting from any exchange in ideas whatsoever. The ones that actually show promise lock themselves into a paradigm of thought by the phrasing or object of the question that can often preclude reaching an actual answer. When I spot that and question our approach, I get the filthiest looks. A conversation can't grow and expand backwards without pointing that out, which you need to do to get the right answer if one or more of your assumptions are wrong, and we won't know that without examining them. It's like begging the question, when the conversation starts out some way down a particular line of enquiry before we're necessarily justified in doing so. You're basically having your conversations in the wrong order by skipping some important ones, which, had they been had, may not have even lead to the quite one we were having. And if that's the case, we can't hope to achieve a valid conclusion with the one we were having, and so participating in it is even more futile than it already appears.
It's a matter of epistemology. It doesn't only apply to conversations, which are really just thinking out loud, except that other people can join in.
|
What a beautiful paragraph of smarmy nonsense. Here's an idea. If conversations don't work, don't participate in them at all.
__________________
My bowels hurt.
|
|
|
