[lbo-talk] Terrain of Struggle was O'Reilly vs Churchill

[Michael Dawson]

Miles, you pedant, why don't you read what I wrote?  I said arguments always
include an analysis of motives.  I didn't say that's all they are.  And your
claim that you've ever dealt with an argument without considering the
background motives is, well, pedantic.  BS, dude.

And P.S.:  Analyzing arguers' motives is inside, not outside, the
Enlightenment.  You have a "data" fetish.  That's its own form of
anti-Enlightenment fetish.  And it's pretty freakin' weird, coming from a
psych prof...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Miles Jackson
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:55 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Terrain of Struggle was O'Reilly vs Churchill
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Michael Dawson wrote:
> 
> > Which two people
> > have ever exchanged differing opinions on any topic without paying
> attention
> > to the opponent's motives?  Everybody who's spent 5 serious minutes on
> logic
> > knows that.  Why don't you?
> 
> Call me a well indoctrinated child of the Enlightenment, but the
> motives of someone who is providing information or a specific argument
> are completely irrelevant to a critical and rational assessment of the
> person's assertions.  If you say "Social security funds will be
> completely exhausted by 2042", speculating about your motives is
> a waste of time.  Whether you really believe this and are trying to
> spread the truth or you are disseminating lies to further your
> political agenda, the question remains: Is this in fact a valid
> statement?
> 
> Knowing your motives doesn't answer that question; only careful
> and rational consideration of the available evidence can do that.
> 
> Miles
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk