 |
 |
You are right June: in the overwhelming majority of debates there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by being disagreeable. However, when faced by, say, a ranting racist or a raging religious fanatic who is impervious to rational argument, simply to walk away is not always enough. A protest by condemnation, rebuke or ridicule may be the best option even if the ranter sees this as disagreeable. Trevor. _____ From: A list to promote discussion of philosophical issues in nursing [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of June Kikuchi Sent: 13 November 2008 18:31 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: pointless to argue Trevor said, >> "... with someone who you think does not respond to reasoned argument it might be appropriate to be disagreeable ... Being disagreeable would at least demonstrate opposition and act as a protest." I'm wondering why just disagreeing and giving your reasons for disagreement but not entering into an argument would not suffice. What would be gained from being disagreeable? June