Post a response:
|
If the purpose of argument, whether in debate or in something like a personal essay or blog or video post, is to arrive at the truth, then it can seem beside the point to engage in debate about the legitimacy of minor attraction in a wide-open forum like youtube. Most of the people opposed to this idea refuse to acknowledge evidence of lack of harm, or lack of evidence of harm, as anything like salient. In other words, they don't care about the truth (as in the facts), but are committed to their point of view. Haters gonna hate, unfortunately. They don’t even acknowledge freedom of expression as legitimate if what is expressed contradicts what they already think. I guess the point is to figure out who the sort of people who might be open to argument are (and what sort of argument they might be open to), and try to address them. People who relish the chance to make vile threats against youtube posters aren’t the ones, obviously. Who are? Maybe purported free thinkers, atheist groups, ethical societies, would-be rationalists – people who make a point of saying they are open to reason and to challenging their own assumptions. |