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

[Michael Dawson]

> On Behalf Of Turbulo at aol.com
*************
> 
> You can, but people don't usually talk about motives when they think the
> argument has merit. Then the motive is seen as nothing other than
> expressing a rational point of view. It's usually when arguments are
> deemed spurious that a fair-minded person goes for the motive ("Why is
> this guy making such a self-evidently stupid argument? There must be
> something else to it.")In other words, motives are normally invoked when
> hopes of responding rationally have been abandoned, so to evaluate both
> the argument and the motive mostly means you have disimissed the argument.
> It may be perfectly OK to do this, depending on the argument, but this is
> what you're doing.

So, when you read Paul Craig Roberts and Paul Krugman, you do so without
caring about their motives?  Both those guys are putting out a lot of
correct arguments these days.  You don't wonder how and why?