If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.
There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.
Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.
It depends on the subject. I agreed to disagree on Peterson’s justification of sexual harassment, for example.
Okay, so I’m not sure what your point was. I don’t see any tactic of the Right at work. It’s just a way of ending a particular contentious discourse.
For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.
Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.
I’m resistant to debating things that aren’t up for debate. Like debating a flat-Earther.
Depends on your interest and goals. If the government was pushing a flat-Earth agenda and much of the population agreed, you might consider debating the matter to convince people.
You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.
Of course, but not when they’re inconsistent with reality.
Obviously. But you can be wrong. And facts X,Y,Z may or may not add up to a certain conclusion. That’s what argument is all about.
It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.
You’re confusing facts and arguments.
Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.
That’s your argument. But he may be weighing facts differently and considering facts that you aren’t. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of conceding a fact and saying, yeah, but there are these other facts, considerations, context, etc.