Credit: Pervis (@PervisTime) - Twitter
Nitter link: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/status/1700928952670245321
RSS Feed: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/rss
Credit: Pervis (@PervisTime) - Twitter
Nitter link: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/status/1700928952670245321
RSS Feed: https://nitter.cz/PervisTime/rss
That would be because the question is as ridiculous as asking a blind person why they don’t just open their eyes so they can see.
Just because you may judge it is ridiculous doesn’t mean it actually is ridiculous.
If you’re having an intellectually honest conversation with someone, and they ask you a question to make their point, you really are supposed to answer it and not avoid answering it.
By avoiding answering the question you basically signal that you can’t answer the question for whatever reason, not that it’s not worth answering, and that your side of the argument is weak.
You can’t have an intellectually honest conversation if there is a bad actor. Intellectual conversations of any kind are predicated on at least two parties doing the mental work necessary to understand the other side, rather than arguing simply for a feeling of being right.
The moment a question like that is posed, it’s no longer an intellectual conversation, it’s one person put in the position of teaching something basic to someone who doesn’t want to learn. No adult owes that to anyone, unless they are being paid to do it.
That’s one hell of an assumption / straw man you have there.
I would challenge you to consider that you might be incorrect about that, to consider not doing that classification if it’s just questions you don’t like, or more importantly, don’t have an answer to.
It’s not a good look to assume that someone doesn’t have an answer, just because they don’t find it worthwhile to teach you basic thinking skills.
Still doesn’t negate my point.
You can throw insults around like a fighter jet shooting out chaff to avoid a missile strike, but that doesn’t change anything.