TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,293
I just had a thought about an older thread I had earlier this year, which was about indirectly testing the waters of pro-lifers' stances and to (somewhat) know whether or not the person is really pro-choice or not, kind of similar to that of a litmus test. However, after some thought about it, I felt like it somewhat missed the mark such that it was misconstrued in what I'm really intending. So I'm making this thread in an effort to clarify what I mean and what my intention was.
So in the older thread, I mainly wrote it as at the time I had an idea that came to mind, which was something I found potentially useful to share. In that older thread I talked about using indirect ways, even playing Devil's Advocate (not necessarily to support a controversial position or even go against one's own values, but to use it as some way to really figure out the opponent's true stance, mainly for one's own benefit to avoid potential dangers). However, some people misconstrued it as being disingenuous, deceptive, or even immoral. I disagree with the notion and regret that some people interpret it as being manipulative or even worse than pro-lifers. If anything, it's more done as a preemptive measure to protect oneself from falling into traps, and at worst, it is nothing compared to what pro-lifers and anti-choicers do to us.
Furthermore, when it comes to rhetoric, tactics, and such, Devil's Advocate is commonly used in arguments and debates not necessarily to abandon one's values or to support a position that one doesn't hold, but rather to prove a point or disprove what the opponent has. It is a tool in a toolbox in the realm of debates and arguments and not a moral failing nor immoral act. So finally with that said, hopefully there are people who may now understand my intentions and position a bit better.
So in the older thread, I mainly wrote it as at the time I had an idea that came to mind, which was something I found potentially useful to share. In that older thread I talked about using indirect ways, even playing Devil's Advocate (not necessarily to support a controversial position or even go against one's own values, but to use it as some way to really figure out the opponent's true stance, mainly for one's own benefit to avoid potential dangers). However, some people misconstrued it as being disingenuous, deceptive, or even immoral. I disagree with the notion and regret that some people interpret it as being manipulative or even worse than pro-lifers. If anything, it's more done as a preemptive measure to protect oneself from falling into traps, and at worst, it is nothing compared to what pro-lifers and anti-choicers do to us.
Furthermore, when it comes to rhetoric, tactics, and such, Devil's Advocate is commonly used in arguments and debates not necessarily to abandon one's values or to support a position that one doesn't hold, but rather to prove a point or disprove what the opponent has. It is a tool in a toolbox in the realm of debates and arguments and not a moral failing nor immoral act. So finally with that said, hopefully there are people who may now understand my intentions and position a bit better.
