So is your opinion that “they should” choose B over A in order to “have the other members of the discussion (including the audience) not take the other person seriously either”?
No. My opinion is that they should choose B over A in order to not lie about how they feel. But that answer didn’t seem to satisfy you, so I was trying to come up with an answer that would, so you could continue making whatever point you’re trying to make.
Lol, oh man
“My doctor tells me that medicare pays out 3 times as much as I get from private insurance, won’t government healthcare just increase the costs?”
“Well, it’s a question of values…”
Lol, yea…right.
Do you think not overtly expressing every single emotional state you have is “lying”? Not guffawing is not necessarily a signal that you take the other person seriously. For example, it might be common knowledge that a certain famous economist does not regard Marxists as serious thinkers. Yet, in a debate with a Marxist, that economist may refrain from guffawing simply as a sign, not that he takes the other person’s ideas seriously, but that he respects the other person as a fellow human being who does not deserve to be needlessly aggravated. In exhibiting self-control, and not guffawing, such an economist would not be “lying”.
Alternatively, someone might not even have that respect for his opponent, but simply regards guffaws as a net counter-productive distraction. His self-restraint need indicate nothing else than that fact.
You are confusing “lying” with simply not wearing your heart on your sleeve.
I agree with everything you said in your last part, Danny. However, let me remind you that I was not arguing that one should specifically guffaw when he doesn’t take someone seriously. At the same time, I (for one) wouldn’t want other people to think that I agree with someone saying e.g. “Medicare is the most efficient system” by remaining completely passive while he says it. If I were in that situation, I’d at least raise an eyebrow at the remark - but that’s just me.
For the record, I completely agree that there’s a difference between disagreeing with what someone else says and needlessly aggravating him for saying it. One doesn’t have to express his position in a needlessly aggravating manner, since that is (as correctly pointed out by you) typically counter-productive.
I could only watch 7 minutes before turning it off. This guy is such an asshole. SO FULL OF CRAP. ALMOST EVERY WORD.
My father came from Russia to Palestine. He had a Bible in one hand. He had a gun in another. And he extended a hand in friendship to the Arabs.
My father had three hands, because I am Ranaan Gissin.
Finkelstein was so right in telling him that he’d be very friendly in coming to his home with a gun in his hand.
All I see are two lunatics arguing.
I don’t know why some libertarians insist on taking sides on this conflict.
I’m just going to go ahead and point out that the Cato Fellow in the embedded video was holding back a laugh as best he could and allowing a pretty big grin almost the whole time, and by 1:53 he does end up just shaking his head. And at 3:53 he actually ends up rolling his eyes at this woman’s nonsense.
So, I’m not exactly sure what sort of reaction you were looking for, Prateek, but he certainly didn’t sit there with a straight face the whole time…and honestly “robotic” is pretty far down the list of words I would use to describe his reactions.