Andrey (azangru) wrote,

The ridiculous thing about this argument, which Dan is now faithfully parroting, is that of course no-one owes anyone anything. No-one owes anyone teaching. But by the same token, no-one owes anyone their attention, or their trust, or their support. A conversation is a process that usually takes place between mutually consenting individuals. If someone doesn’t want to "teach" something to someone, i.e. present their position and offer it for critical examination, then of course they are free not to do so. It is like when someone does not want to have a conversation about their differing religious views, they are under no obligation to do so — it would have been ridiculous if Christians started telling atheists that they do not owe it to them to teach them Christianity. There is absolutely no need to be defensive or combative about your reluctance to explain your position on anything to others.


  • (no subject)

    Results of a survey. No idea who those guys are or how reliable their data, but I've been wondering for a while now what people mean when they say…

  • (no subject)

    I'm listening to The Ickabog, by J.K. Rowling and read, with much gusto, by Stephen Fry. What started like a nice children's tale not dissimilar from…

  • (no subject)

    From today's questions to the Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, today, millions of Uyghur people in China live in fear under a cruel regime. The BBC,…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.