![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribI mentioned that I was going to talk more about this link - arguments from my opponents believe something. Well, here goes.
The tl;dr version of the above is "my opponent believes X, therefore he's wrong." I find it an extremely irritating argument, for two reasons:
1) I frequently don't believe whatever I'm accused of. I don't, for example, think that government is the answer to all problems, or in a "vast sea of federal power limited by islands of protections for various rights." No, government is and should be limited. However, "limited" is a relative term, and limits that were appropriate when we were 2 million people on horseback huddled along the east coast probably won't work when we're 300 million people jetting around the world.
2) The argument is inherently lazy, and rarely addresses the topic at hand. Okay, suppose for argument's sake that I did believe government is the answer to all problems. That tells you nothing about the validity of a government solution to a particular problem. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I see these arguments used a lot, and find that they are sound and fury signifying nothing.
The tl;dr version of the above is "my opponent believes X, therefore he's wrong." I find it an extremely irritating argument, for two reasons:
1) I frequently don't believe whatever I'm accused of. I don't, for example, think that government is the answer to all problems, or in a "vast sea of federal power limited by islands of protections for various rights." No, government is and should be limited. However, "limited" is a relative term, and limits that were appropriate when we were 2 million people on horseback huddled along the east coast probably won't work when we're 300 million people jetting around the world.
2) The argument is inherently lazy, and rarely addresses the topic at hand. Okay, suppose for argument's sake that I did believe government is the answer to all problems. That tells you nothing about the validity of a government solution to a particular problem. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I see these arguments used a lot, and find that they are sound and fury signifying nothing.
