Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zythryn
Do you propose that anyone with a bumper sticker is unable to hold a sophisticated argument on the topic of their bumper sticker but you can have a sophisticated discussion with them about anything else?
|
Not precisely - but I'd say that in general, I'd avoid discussions requiring subtle nuances with people who have inflammatory bumper stickers.
Examples -
Positives and Negatives of GW Bush with a person with a "Tree Good, Bush Bad" sticker.
Evolution with someone with one of those legged fish getting eaten by the Jesus fish.
Gay rights with the aforementioned "Adam and Steve" guy.
The other thing you need to do is define "sophisticated." You can have extremely
complicated arguments with them over said issue. But I would wager, than in general, your Anti-Bush guy isn't going to go "Yeah, I disagree with his foreign policy, but the Vision for Space Exploration is good." Your anti-evolution person isn't going to go - "Obviously evolution is a fact, but I have yet to be convinced that self-reproduction could evolve from the primordial ooze." And your "Adam & Steve" bigot isn't going to say "My religious views don't really have any bearing on civil legislation - all I'm saying is that gay people make me uncomfortable."
I guess I'm using "sophisticated" in the sense of "nuanced understanding" and not "really complicated."
It's not their
ability to have this discussion that's in question, it's their
willingness. And no, I'm not saying this is a universal truth - all I'm saying is that I wouldn't start a discussion about one of those things with one of those people and expect to have an edifying conversation.
In the "Adam and Steve" case - people with bigoted bumper stickers tend to be bigots.
TFS
