Not only that, but I indulged the thought exercise, showed him where his argument led to hot water...and the instant he touched the hot water, he bailed and scurried right back under his "values!" crap as if I hadn't indulged his admit-your-axioms demand in the first place. And in doing so came off as saying that merely acknowledging and responding to criticism is merely a "value", and that it's ok to dismiss, threaten and disappear your opposition as long as your "values" are good with that. Never mind that appeal to force is not a rational argument, we can't prove "values" as wrong with science therefore sophistry and "shut up" is totes ok. Which is a line of argument I've seen before, but back then I wasn't in a space like this =/
and yet, according to Samsa and the many many others who will push these sorts of arguments, this is the proper way to hold discussions. discussions must be philosophically pure, sanitized of interference from "irrational" concerns like treating people as people rather than pawns on a chessboard or committing to evaluate and revise one's positions according to rules of logic rather than rules of debate club. we must always debate as though we are like the philosophers of old: disinterested godlike figures with the privilege to pull the strings of argument and watch the ripples spread through the halls of power that support our protected ivory towers, rather than real people who are looking up from outside the comfort of those towers and who have a real interest in the topics of discussion.
.
