I'm not sure which of two things you're saying. Are you arguing that 1) people should avoid talking abstractly (cont)
...is it really important that I say "and I disagree with slavery, and here is my exact plan for how to end it" at same time?
-
-
If you want the pro-slavery advocate to take you seriously, yes, you have to make your policy position clear. If you don't, he (rightly)
-
suspects you of concealing your policy views and only pretending to make reasoned arguments.
-
Granted there are situations where it's trickier. Lindberg was a Nazi, anti-semite, and isolationist, so which policy view should he reveal
-
When he's arguing again US intervention in WW2? The flip side of that is that it's impossible to take Charles Murray's research on IQ
-
seriously if you don't know in advance that he views race as a genetically-coded trait passed down through generations.
-
My view is that you cannot evaluate someone's data or criticism if you do not know that person's motivations.
-
Your view seems to be that sufficiently formalized rules of evidentiary proof make someone's particular views irrelevant. I disagree.
-
Wait. With the Murray example, say you interpret his views on IQ differently if you know he believes in race. But does (cont)
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.