Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Where do we draw the line between political discussion and ideological spam?

loquitur · 12-28-2007, 09:49 AM

DC_Dux, there is nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies of fact. Facts trump argument every time, or should. But an opinion -- which is a conclusion drawn from a fact or an inference, not a fact itself -- is just an opinion. An opinion isn't a lie; it can't be. If you disagree with it, that means you find other inferences more persuasive, or you think the person didn't take into account things you think s/he should have. It doesn't mean the person is lying.

Let me give you an example. Remember that brouhaha about what the role of taxation is? My view was that the role of taxation is to finance government operations, while a number of people here felt that at least part of the role was to redistribute income or wealth. (Strictly speaking, if you think part of the role of government is to redistribute income and wealth, then taxing for that purpose IS funding govt operations, but that's a semantic point). There is no "true" or "false" view on that; people will feel differently about the issue depending on their view of the proper role of government generally. That issue has been batted around for centuries and we still don't have a better answer than Rousseau or Mill or Adam Smith had, we just have different incarnations of the old arguments. But neither view is "false," in the sense that it can be shown not to be true -- it's just a preference issue that will vary based on whether what you value more greatly is liberty or equality; whether what you value more is stability or growth; whether what you value more is philosophy or utility.

That's why trying to "win" is futile. My usual response to proposals I disagree with is "it doesn't work." To me that's the acid test, and the basis for agreement or disagreement. If it's tried and it DOES work, then I was wrong and will admit it. But if your response to my proposal is "it's immoral," what the heck am I supposed to do with that? Obviously I didn't think the proposal was immoral, or else I wouldn't have put it forth -- and I am not a bad person. So what does that sort of an argument bring about?

Is this making sense?

12-28-2007, 09:49 AM	#67 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	DC_Dux, there is nothing wrong with pointing out inaccuracies of fact. Facts trump argument every time, or should. But an opinion -- which is a conclusion drawn from a fact or an inference, not a fact itself -- is just an opinion. An opinion isn't a lie; it can't be. If you disagree with it, that means you find other inferences more persuasive, or you think the person didn't take into account things you think s/he should have. It doesn't mean the person is lying. Let me give you an example. Remember that brouhaha about what the role of taxation is? My view was that the role of taxation is to finance government operations, while a number of people here felt that at least part of the role was to redistribute income or wealth. (Strictly speaking, if you think part of the role of government is to redistribute income and wealth, then taxing for that purpose IS funding govt operations, but that's a semantic point). There is no "true" or "false" view on that; people will feel differently about the issue depending on their view of the proper role of government generally. That issue has been batted around for centuries and we still don't have a better answer than Rousseau or Mill or Adam Smith had, we just have different incarnations of the old arguments. But neither view is "false," in the sense that it can be shown not to be true -- it's just a preference issue that will vary based on whether what you value more greatly is liberty or equality; whether what you value more is stability or growth; whether what you value more is philosophy or utility. That's why trying to "win" is futile. My usual response to proposals I disagree with is "it doesn't work." To me that's the acid test, and the basis for agreement or disagreement. If it's tried and it DOES work, then I was wrong and will admit it. But if your response to my proposal is "it's immoral," what the heck am I supposed to do with that? Obviously I didn't think the proposal was immoral, or else I wouldn't have put it forth -- and I am not a bad person. So what does that sort of an argument bring about? Is this making sense?