This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Two rationalists fail to agree, so you’re going to:
A) discuss until some sort of synthesis is found (this statement needs some qualifiers, which you, my charitable reader, may insert to your liking)
or
B) not talk about it (and delete your identities for good measure!)
Hmm, that’s a tough one. (and I ommitted C/D, the other side is stupid/evil!)
Additionally, this post seems rather disingenuous coming from a participant (I gather; I don’t/haven’t read every comment, and don’t really pay any attention to usernames) in the argument whose side seems to be to maintain the status quo… (IOW, if everyone stops talking about it, your “side” wins—that’s no way for a rationalist to win a debate)
This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Two rationalists fail to agree, so you’re going to:
A) discuss until some sort of synthesis is found (this statement needs some qualifiers, which you, my charitable reader, may insert to your liking)
or
B) not talk about it (and delete your identities for good measure!)
Hmm, that’s a tough one. (and I ommitted C/D, the other side is stupid/evil!)
Additionally, this post seems rather disingenuous coming from a participant (I gather; I don’t/haven’t read every comment, and don’t really pay any attention to usernames) in the argument whose side seems to be to maintain the status quo… (IOW, if everyone stops talking about it, your “side” wins—that’s no way for a rationalist to win a debate)
No, C/D would be “convince the other side to stop talking about it, then push stronger for a synthesis that favors your side”.
I’m pretty sure we at least don’t have anyone doing that.