184
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
184 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54391 readers
206 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
How do you make someone realize that their philosophical views are bad then?
So if you have an immoveable stance against war, isn't it just as likely someone out there believes they have a similarly immovable stance in favor of the draft?
Uh, just to be clear, I'm not actually trying to sway you. Just pointing out to OP, and to you I guess since you're engaging, that when someone holds an "immoveable stance" as they themselves say, and aren't open to changing their views, it is highly unlikely one can convince them to change. Like, someone could up to you and say you're wrong and evil for your views but that probably isn't going to convince you, right?
Is every alternative preferable to war? For example, should Ukraine have agreed to become part of Russia to avoid war?
Quite a few nations capitulated against the Nazis within days or even without a fight to avoid war. It saved a lot of lives. Does that make it the right choice? Who is to say...
What's for sure is that Boris shouldn't have vetoed the peace agreement in 2022.
I didn't think it saved lives, since it empowered the Nazis to kill more people. So I say no it wasn't the right choice.
Look it's hard to say if it saved lives in the overall ww2 tally, but surrender to save lives was the rationale of the Generals eg in The Netherlands. They looked at what the Luftwaffe had done to Rotterdam, looked at what weapons they had themselves, considered the prospect of what was going to happen to Utrecht next, and decided that further resistance was futile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II#German_occupation
Sorry, I don't mean to say that it killed more people in every case. I agree there are could be cases where the outcome was certain, and maintaining strength for gorilla resistance and saving population centers was likely prudent.
I was primarily referring to appeasement, where countries in Europe, mostly England, gave the Nazis land to avoid war.
Perhaps by bringing up resources that prove my philosophical views bad
What kind of resources are we talking about here? Clearly it doesn't help to make you talk to 1 person that holds contrasting views, as that seems to be your starting point. A study of 1000? A study of 100000? An empirical research over 100 years? 500? A meta analysis? 5 people talking to you about it? 10? 100?
So have you tried that with the people who agree with the draft? Did you find it was convincing to them?
We don't have a way to do this. I don't think we ever will. Wish the answer was different.
The one thing I will say is that logical argument is extremely ineffective for changing people's views. Personal, emotional stories are best. The issue is that war and the draft is already highly emotionally charged, so it's gonna be hard to find something that will strike a nerve with someone who hasn't already come around on it.
Classically, you'd discuss their views with them and find the logical conclusions. Then you'd talk though if those ideas contradict with other ideas they hold. That sort of discussion/dialogue is basically all of Plato.
You can't force someone to believe something
First you set up a news agency. You tune into their fear of inadequacy. You craft stories and spin truths to Make sure that they're good and scared of the future of them and their family. You keep slowly chipping away until they have no problem with suspension of disbelief. You make sure that day and their friends all have the right tools to indoctrinate each other. Then you get small and big business on board by offering them tons of money to help keep everybody good and scared. You craft laws and put people in the right places in police organizations to make sure that the people you're trying to scare them with are seen as the Boogeyman. Sure, it's not technically forcing but it's forcing...