Discussion: Fausticorn Rule 34 (Reasoned Discourse Is Collapsing)

I saw it coming. When needs-more-plot called notaclopbanana “hopeless” and notaclopbanana stereotyped those on the opposing side of the issue, I realized that people were getting frustrated. That’s not always a bad thing, but the problem that usually arises is that people start to ignore the actual arguments of others and make bad arguments themselves. They start to get the mentality of: This person is clueless, so why should I care?

If it really is the same argument with nothing else to back it up, then it’s okay to ignore it. (Though I think it’s better to at least refer back to a prior response.) But if there’s something new, consider it. You will encounter people who disagree with you. If you think they’re wrong, tell them why. If you think they’re right, then you might change your views. This is what reasonable discussion is about: considering the views of others so you yourself become more reasonable.

This is especially important in discussions about morality. Unfortunately, because moral views tend to be very strongly held, discussions on these issues have a greater chance of devolving into irrational discourse. This seems to have happened with the issue of Fausticorn Rule 34.

This last part is dedicated to solarhedonist: I fully respect your decisions as a result of this issue. I’m sorry.