Originally Posted by pampl
Your patience with arguments is completely irrelevant to their merit. Your concern with motivations is as well. Whining about bad faith apparently didn't help Freeman so apparently he also disagrees with your virtue-theory of logic.
Duh that's the purpose of argument. The second half of the sentence doesn't follow, and "understand the motivations of" is different from "attack the motivations of"
1) I have granted the point on the "merit" or "strength" of an argument. I then pointed out that no one operates from the ideal position of being able to respond to all possible objections on their merits and that in terms of pragmatic outcomes only arguments made in good faith matter. Repeating the point as if I disagree with it might it be interesting rhetorically, but it has no impact on the discussion.
2) The fact that Freeman's "whining" about bad faith didn't help him says nothing of his agreement with my "virtue-theory of logic." I'm not even sure what you are attempting to say there. It just sounds snide. Please clarify - if there's anything useful in that sentence then I missed it.
3) At what point did I say anything of virtue? I am making *purely* pragmatic arguments. We could explore the relationship between virtue and argument if you'd like - but the case I'm making is quite strong without having to get into those weeds. Again, introducing virtue as if I've said something about it is a nice rhetorical device - but has no impact.
4) At what point did I attack the motivations of anyone? Or say that one should attack the motivations of anyone? All I claim is that in order to operate in the world one need only concern oneself with arguments that are made in good faith because addressing those is the *only* way to change minds. Spending time addressing arguments made in bad faith will achieve precisely nothing
from a pragmatic standpoint.
I would just at this point note the irony in the fact that you seem to be unable to take my arguments here at face value while arguing that everything should be taken at face value. Is it possible that you introduced virtue into the discussion because you believe I'm motivated by some sense of "virtue" logic? Certainly I never brought it up.