I still think this should not be assumed to be true and used as an argument. If there is a reason that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, use the reason as an argument instead.
I agree. Assuming the statement refers to beliefs, and the being hearing the truth doesn’t discard them unless they are disproved , it reduces to “false beliefs should be destroyed”, which seems obvious in most cases, losing the appearance that it is an actual argument against holding false beliefs.
I still think this should not be assumed to be true and used as an argument. If there is a reason that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, use the reason as an argument instead.
I agree. Assuming the statement refers to beliefs, and the being hearing the truth doesn’t discard them unless they are disproved , it reduces to “false beliefs should be destroyed”, which seems obvious in most cases, losing the appearance that it is an actual argument against holding false beliefs.