I think that we can discuss politics and religion endlessly, but there are actually certain points at which no possible discussion can occur. These are generally when one side of the argument does not accept something that is a fundamental truth for the other.

The easiest example of this is a conspiracy theory. For instance, how can you discuss 9/11 with a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, or the Holocaust with a Holocaust denier? You both believe that fundamentally very different things occurred, and that there are extraordinarily different realities that come about once the conclusion is made -- either that the government is occupied by people who did do 9/11 themselves (a common 9/11 theme), or that much of 20th century history is based on a lie orchestrated by a powerful cabal that now controls may of our institutions (Holocaust denial).

It is also nearly impossible to really get to the bottom of what a conspiracy theorist is saying because they generally exploit things that nearly nobody can know except eyewitnesses to the events themselves (who are often said to be part of the conspiracy), and they often involve a lot of reasonign based on very in-depth complaints about the science or history of a thing rooted in the details that are lacking...

Regardless, it is not a fun process, and discussion becomes basically impossible.

There is, however, other instances that can occur in real life, and we just saw one in the OD forum: the concept that the ancient Hebrews could have existed without a system of slavery.

Slavery was not just a social norm, but it even ameliorated the effects of mass famine and warfare. In an age where there is no liquid currency and displacement means death, the slave system made it possible for people to be peacefully taken prisoner, kept alive, and then to potentially have themselves or their children pursue a future at a later date.

Suggesting that God could have outlawed slavery is pretty ridiculous. The Hebrews would have been doomed as a people, and probably even greater cruelties would have occurred.

Perhaps if your opponent is honest, you can explain this to them and then they can agree to disagree, but when they are not, you are at an impossible impasse.

Of course, there is a variety of other issues that hit these sorts of impasses... but these are usually down at the end of the rope and there is a much greater area of discussion that is available. For instance, when one believes in God and the other does not, one can still discuss a variety of things tangentially related without running out of rope... Furthermore, pro-life and pro-choice people often have very interesting and complex discussions about it even though the root of the problem really comes down to a very fundametnal difference of opinion on when life begins.

What we have here, in the slavery instance, is the rope of the discussable has been choked up on so much that any room for discussion evaporates.

I have found a similar issue can often exist when it comes to human sexuality. If someone simply repeats the mantra that ti si my body, my choice or the inexhaustible consenting adults in the privacy of their own home! bit, and refuses to acknowledge that sexual morality exists or that the discussion shoudl branch out, we have ourselves another impossible to discuss issue.

In the old days, I would just keep returning to the argument like a dog returns to its vomit... But now, I can't be bothered. There's way too many good books to read to let ourselves be dragged into these sorts of impossible things to discuss with people who are incapable of honest discussion.

The Drones and Queens Club

Super Admins