No, this 'intellectual conversation' should never happen. The people involved in any sort of conversation of this type(as I am sure many have happened in the past) will only dull their sympathy for people who do have to struggle/contend with this happening to them. It's morally disgusting and I could care less about your definition of 'morality'.
The idea that scholarly discussions should ever be disregarded as insensitive is, in my opinion, pure absurdity.
I don't disagree that this isn't the right time for it (though I don't fault angersock for that), nor do I disagree that it might dull the sympathies of some - regardless, I completely reject that as a valid reason for avoiding an exchange of ideas driven by intellect.
The exchanging of ideas is the definition of conversation itself, it is not particular to 'scholarly discussions'. That alone completely negates your point.
However, I understand what you are trying to say. You are worried that the dismissal of conversation is a bad attitude towards progress. That is true. BUT that is not what is happening here. The premise was already set for what this conversation would be about. You should think of my rhetoric as a part of the conversation itself. Just because I weighed in as "going further accomplishes nothing", does not make that a a wrong conclusion. You could try to prove why THAT conclusion is wrong (but only in relationship to the conversation itself) instead of generalizing what I am doing as somehow "stopping all scholarly discussions".
>Stopping any scholarly discussion is, in my opinion, pure absurdity.
And yet you hypocritically just put an end to a conversation that would be about: "Whether or not stopping points for scholarly discussions can be useful".
How can you not even see how unfruitful your conclusions are?
Because I don't have any desire to prolong a conversation with someone who feels like a possibly poor choice of words on my part renders my entire argument useless.
Choosing to opt out of a discussion is not the same as attempting to prevent others from having one.
Having a discussion with someone whose principle argument is that the discussion shouldn't be had seems like folly to me. Call it unfruitful if you like, but I wasn't attempting to start an argument as much as do my duty and explain the downvote.
We could go on and talk about the hypocrisy of how your attempts to extend the conversation are being made in order to bolster your argument against having one in the first place, but truly, I was not, nor am not trying to be condescending, as much as expressing my outright rejection for the idea that there is ever grounds for preventing an intellectual discussion on the grounds that someone might not like it.
The original conversation is not the one being extended. And who chose to take a leap away from the original conversation? You did. Your entire comment: invalid.
Disagreed. Any form of discrimination or ignorance should be challenged with more dialogue instead of less. Take whatever abhorrent ideological position you can think of and I will tell you that we should discuss it publicly, challenge it publicly, and destroy it intellectually in a public forum.
This has the advantages of:
* the person who held these thoughts outs themselves as a bigot as opposed to being a toxic agent
* a corpus of knowledge how to dispel/combat such positions is formed
* people who may be in the beginning stages of harboring such ideas are either discouraged due to strong public pushback or are helped to realize how wrong that position is
No, this 'intellectual conversation' should never happen. The people involved in any sort of conversation of this type(as I am sure many have happened in the past) will only dull their sympathy for people who do have to struggle/contend with this happening to them. It's morally disgusting and I could care less about your definition of 'morality'.