On reasonable and unreasonable topics to disagree about

[mayica]

On most topics, I like reading articles and posts that I don't agree with. I'm interested in health care, and want to read articles in support of a variety of health care systems. Even if I disagree with the author, I may learn something interesting, and reasonable people can certainly disagree about the merits of the French health care system.

There are topics, however, on which reasonable people should not disagree. Take marital rape, for example. If you post a non-critical link to an article endorsing marital rape, I don't care whether you agree with the author or not. You are treating it as a topic on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and by doing so, you are effectively endorsing marital rape as valid, even if you don't personally agree with the it.

If you you consider rape (or any other topic) to be beyond the realm of reasonable disagreement, don't treat it as a legitimate topic for discussion. (At the very least, if you still think the author has some reasonable points, make it very clear which parts unacceptable.)

Context for the confused and curious: this LJ post, and the ensuing discussion about Robin Hanson's misogynistic pile of crap.