The original argument was about whether people change their minds in the face of evidence. The evidence says people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. The person you’re saying is a troll refused to change their mind in the face of evidence. You think they should have changed their mind in the face of evidence, because you believe that people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. Correct?
I agree that most people would not change their minds in the heat of an emotional argument. I also believe that despite this it is the duty of every citizen with a brain to change their minds when presented with new evidence. I also believe that no one could miss the irony in the original post unless they were doing so intentionally.
Anyway, you were talking about driving the left and the right apart.
Partisan realists don’t want to have more disagreements with people who have different politics, they want to pretend there are no disagreements and that people with different politics don’t exist. They call anyone they disagree with a troll who’s just lying that they disagree
Okay. I’m not yet fully convinced of the existence of such people, but I can all but guarantee there aren’t any in this thread. There’s a big difference between that and saying you should stop arguing with someone who clearly isn’t interested in what you have to say.
Also, no one said trolls were lying about what they believed. Many trolls like to hide behind “I’m joking” as an excuse for believing things that are not acceptable to believe in modern society.
It’s the definition of a troll. Being disingenuous in order to upset others. If that’s not what you mean, don’t call someone a troll.
I do believe trolls exist, and in my opinion the world’s greatest troll is Ken M, who makes fun of people that were going to get upset anyway, and who never punches down. But I would rather use Hanlon’s razor in most situations.
The original argument was about whether people change their minds in the face of evidence. The evidence says people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. The person you’re saying is a troll refused to change their mind in the face of evidence. You think they should have changed their mind in the face of evidence, because you believe that people don’t change their minds in the face of evidence. Correct?
I agree that most people would not change their minds in the heat of an emotional argument. I also believe that despite this it is the duty of every citizen with a brain to change their minds when presented with new evidence. I also believe that no one could miss the irony in the original post unless they were doing so intentionally.
Anyway, you were talking about driving the left and the right apart.
Partisan realists don’t want to have more disagreements with people who have different politics, they want to pretend there are no disagreements and that people with different politics don’t exist. They call anyone they disagree with a troll who’s just lying that they disagree
Okay. I’m not yet fully convinced of the existence of such people, but I can all but guarantee there aren’t any in this thread. There’s a big difference between that and saying you should stop arguing with someone who clearly isn’t interested in what you have to say.
Also, no one said trolls were lying about what they believed. Many trolls like to hide behind “I’m joking” as an excuse for believing things that are not acceptable to believe in modern society.
It’s the definition of a troll. Being disingenuous in order to upset others. If that’s not what you mean, don’t call someone a troll.
I do believe trolls exist, and in my opinion the world’s greatest troll is Ken M, who makes fun of people that were going to get upset anyway, and who never punches down. But I would rather use Hanlon’s razor in most situations.