Re: Hi
[ QUOTE ]
Unrelenting dissection of one's arguments may not be uncivil per se, however can be pretty damn annoying. If one is continuously attacking another's position based solely on political philosophy, all discussion would therefore necessarily be about the merits of that political philosophy. That discussion is of course vital, but it is the contention of many that the ACists insistence that the very premise of arguments must be dissected at all times has most probably resulted in being a major contributor to the current state of modding affairs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that it is possible to discuss politics without discussing political philosophy, it is not!
Example
Person 1: I think law XYZ is good.
Person 2: I think law XYZ is bad, why on earth d'you think it is good?
Person 1: Because of reason ABC.
By the third line it has by definition become a political philosophy discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, the only way to avoid contention is to allow the conversation to move into political philosophy otherwise all conversations will look like this:
Steven: Law XYZ is good.
Sthephen: Bad!
Steven: Good!!!
Stephen: BAAAAAAAAAAAAADDD!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you allow the conversation to move to political philosophy they might reach the source of their contention which is their differing axioms (or a logical inconsistency on one of their parts).
|