Dear John,

It is no secret that every analogy has its limitations.
It should be quite easy to pick up on the limitations, even when irrelevant, as a way to avoid the message.

Let me get more specific in this Bondi-beach analogy, while I understand that whatever I describe, there is no way to stop you from forever finding faults with the analogy, if so you choose.

Suppose the person asking you which Hanukkah song you prefer, is the 8-year-old daughter of the shooter. She is too young to hold a rifle, so she was instructed by her father instead: "Go among these Jews and discuss Hanukkah songs with them, trying to hold them in one spot as long as you can so I have time to aim and shoot".

Do you expect me to tell her which is my favourite song and why?
As I told you earlier, "No reasonable general would take that bait!".

But then you already said it yourself:
«The beliefs about what bullets are, where danger lies, and how shelter works are doing all the causal work in that moment.»

The danger lies in the socio-political intentions - the luxury of discussing climate (or even thinking about it) can wait for a better day.

«It is about whether contested domains justify suspending belief and evidence rather than working harder to discipline them.»

So now it is all about disciplining others who refuse to engage with you in your battlefield of choice?

"What did your first husband die of?" - "Poison".
"What did your second husband die of?" - "Poison".
"What did your third husband die of?" - "Poison".
"What did your fourth husband die of?" - "a bullet to the head".
"Why was it different?" - "because he refused to drink his coffee".

When the teeth are starting to expose, all discussions end.

Yuyutsu,

Your latest reply doesn't add much in the way of new content, it sounds more like you're just raises the emotional stakes to prevent it.

By escalating the analogy to mass violence, manipulated children, and existential threat, you're no longer illustrating a point about epistemology. You're asserting that engagement itself is dangerous and that refusal to deliberate is therefore justified.

That is the move I've been describing throughout.

At this point, belief and evidence aren't said to be distorted, mediated, or difficult to use. They're declared illegitimate because the situation is framed as too hostile to permit them. It's a justification for disengagement.

Your repeated analogies all point to the same conclusion: when one party defines the context as existential threat, discussion ends by design. But that isn't an argument against evidence-guided belief. It's an argument for suspending it.

I don't accept that move, and I don't think anything further will be gained by extending the analogies.

It seems we're no longer disagreeing about climate, psychology, or politics. We're disagreeing about whether fear, urgency, or perceived hostility are sufficient grounds to exempt a topic from epistemic standards.

That difference is now clear.

Dear John,

«fear, urgency, or perceived hostility are sufficient grounds to exempt a topic from epistemic standards.»

They are more than sufficient grounds to avoid and stay away from a topic. It would in fact be imprudent and foolish to do otherwise.

«You're asserting that engagement itself is dangerous and that refusal to deliberate is therefore justified.»

Even if it were not dangerous, I do not need to justify my refusal to deliberate: I do not owe it to you to discuss (or even think about) your favourite topics whenever you say "jump", how less so your baits.

The question is, what would you do if I refuse?

And you did earlier drop a hint of your intention: «...whether contested domains justify suspending belief and evidence rather than working harder to DISCIPLINE them.»

- You will first speak nicely and use every rhetorical tool at your disposal to win over those you wish to proselytise and recruit for your cause, but should they refuse to engage and/or succumb - you will then bully and DISCIPLINE them.

Teeth exposing - discussion ending.

Yuyutsu,

There's a misattribution here that needs to be corrected. I have never claimed that you owe me deliberation, engagement, or belief.

You are entirely free to avoid any topic you wish, for any reason, without justification. That was never in dispute.

What I challenged was the attempt to elevate disengagement itself into an epistemic virtue - to treat refusal to deliberate under conditions of contestation as evidence of prudence rather than as a choice with consequences for explanation.

That is a very different claim.

Nothing I've said implies proselytising, recruitment, bullying, or "discipline" of those who refuse to engage. Those intentions are being projected, not inferred. Pointing out what a position entails is not coercion, and epistemic standards are not instruments of force.

At this point, the discussion has moved away from analysis and into attribution of motives I do not hold.

Dear John,

«What I challenged was the attempt to elevate disengagement itself into an epistemic virtue»

Nobody claimed disengagement to be related to epistemology - rather, there are situations when refraining from engagement is the best for health and safety.

«epistemic standards are not instruments of force.»

Normally they are not, nor is banana peel a weapon, but what happened to [Leviticus 19:14],
“Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.“?

«At this point, the discussion has moved away from analysis and into attribution of motives I do not hold.»

That is rich from someone who opens the discussion with «My, my, my. When the cat’s away…»

Yuyutsu,

//Nobody claimed disengagement to be related to epistemology - rather, there are situations when refraining from engagement is the best for health and safety.//

You are now explicitly framing disengagement as prudent under threat. My objection has never been to your right to disengage, but to the attempt to generalise that prudence into an explanatory principle about contested domains. That move is epistemic, whether intended or not.

//epistemic standards are not instruments of force.//

Correct - and unlike banana peels, epistemic standards are not situational hazards that become weapons by reinterpretation. Treating standards as morally dangerous because they can be perceived as pressure collapses the distinction between critique and coercion entirely.

//what happened to Leviticus 19:14…//

Invoking scripture to equate critical engagement with placing stumbling blocks reinforces the point I've been making: standards are being reframed as harm rather than evaluated as tools of inquiry. That is a moral veto, not an argument.

//there are situations when refraining from engagement is the best for health and safety.//

No disagreement here. But that is a personal boundary decision, not a basis for exempting an entire subject from epistemic scrutiny or recasting disengagement as virtue.

//That is rich from someone who opens the discussion with «My, my, my. When the cat's away…»//

Tone has no bearing on the substance of my critique. My points have been addressing the structure of your claims, not your motives or character.

At this point, the discussion has shifted fully away from analysis and into grievance over framing and tone, which is usually happens when one side of a debate feels their position has collapsed.

It appears my work here is done.