[lbo-talk] Re: Ascribing Motives

[Turbulo at aol.com]

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

------------------------------

Knowing motives isn't a substitute for dealing with a person's arguments. But what if those arguments are incoherent or demonstrably false? I think it was Paul Krugman who wrote that it could be demonstrated a thousand times that there is no immediate crisis of Social Security, but this doesn't stop the Bushites from repeating it over and over. Why they keep repeating it seems to me a valid question. To answer it, one must go beyond the sphere of rational argumentation and inquire as to their motives.