Page 5 of 5

Re: Harry Potter is evil

Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 7:41 pm
by Thriller
Dr. House wrote:So much ignorance from both sides of the argument... ](*,)


Would you elaborate?

Re: Harry Potter is evil

Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:36 am
by Psyko
Thriller wrote:
Dr. House wrote:So much ignorance from both sides of the argument... ](*,)


Would you elaborate?

I had asked him to elaborate at the time of his comment.

The best I can tell is that the ignorance on "our side" is that Christians believe witchcraft = evil; it is a part of their religion, so no matter how stupid we believe that assumption to be, it is a religious standpoint. Which makes the entire debate one centered around religion. The problem with religious debates is that you will never be able to change anyone's mind so it goes around in circles until both sides start feeling the redundant pattern of the argument. No one will concede the view point of the other side of the debate, so it is pointless.

That is essentially what I remember about our "conversation".

Re: Harry Potter is evil

Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:45 am
by Juliette
Psyko wrote:
Thriller wrote:
Dr. House wrote:So much ignorance from both sides of the argument... ](*,)


Would you elaborate?

I had asked him to elaborate at the time of his comment.

The best I can tell is that the ignorance on "our side" is that Christians believe witchcraft = evil; it is a part of their religion, so no matter how stupid we believe that assumption to be, it is a religious standpoint. Which makes the entire debate one centered around religion. The problem with religious debates is that you will never be able to change anyone's mind so it goes around in circles until both sides start feeling the redundant pattern of the argument. No one will concede the view point of the other side of the debate, so it is pointless.

That is essentially what I remember about our "conversation".
Ah!
In that case, this is locked. It has degenerated into a debate using myth and plebeian tradition of self-deceit as foundation for arguments.. we cannot have that.