(May 29, 2017 at 9:40 pm)Valyza1 Wrote:Although I personally agree that ridicule is not the way to go, studies show reasoned argument fares similarly if you are somply looking for results.(May 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Believers having the right or wrong ideas doesn't depend on whether or not god exists either, in my opinion. Right idea or wrong idea to kill the witches? k (hold that thought...).
Right idea if it's gods idea?
I criticize believers ideas if/when/because they have shitty ideas regardless of whether or not their god exists. Those ideas need to go the way of the dodo. Can't hit the actual people in the heads with a club...and it's obvious that people can continue to be a believer without requiring all those shitty ideas. I ridicule those ideas where the decency of criticism is not warranted. If a person tells me that fairies hate gays, so we need anti-gay laws...I'm not going to dignify that shit with a debate, but I won't just shut my mouth and let them shit in everyone's cereal.
How does ridicule help reduce the enactment of biblically-inspired anti-gay laws?
Getting people to change foundational ideas, or even accept new ideas that challenge their foundational ideas, is difficult. It seems that it is something we learn to do young, or perhaps never learn to do at all. How many people have ever deconverted after watching a reasoned debate in which their side was roundly trounced? How many will insist thair guy won no matter what?
Personally, mild ridicule helped me see the error of some of my ways of thinking. Harsh ridicule usually does more harm than good, but it's difficult to avoid when you've heard the same "argument" dozens of times, and it amounts to "feels!", or "but beauty!", etc.
However, I do agree with you that it should be avoided, if possible.
“Eternity is a terrible thought. I mean, where's it going to end?”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead