scribz said Perhaps i'm necroing these threads considering the 3 week rule, but equally considering the lack of activity here I don't see it as a big deal.
It's fine. :P
OT needs the boost in activity anyways.
scribz said So, first note...I disagree with MDK's change, as it subtly moves it from being a matter of "When proving something is detrimental" to "Justify why you should prove it". Which to me, kinda changes the default, as I see proving things to be intrinsically a good thing, rather than a bad thing.
Good point. :/
Just treat it then as if both of the questions are being asked.
scribz said My answer to the actual question would be "When it proves detrimental to the well beings of others, without a means to participate resolve on both parties". That basically means, anything beyond "Oh i'm a bit upset from being proven wrong, I may need to question my identity and actions in reflection to this new world view now proven".
So if I'm reading this right (and I'm thinking I'm not) you're saying something shouldn't be proven if it causes someone else to feel bad in a severe way?
mdk said *nobody* admits they're wrong and comes away better for it.
I have all the time.
I used to be a Christian, Homophobic, Anti-Vaccine, Pro-Life, Women suck individual.
But due to conversation, debate and admitting I was wrong I'm a Atheist, Straight Ally, Pro-Vaccine, Pro-Choice, Gender Egalitarian. And happier for it.