(Untitled)

Feb 18, 2009 23:30

People who argue about arguing to avoid confronting the actual issues are cowards.

Y/N?

Leave a comment

Comments 2

ext_90340 February 18 2009, 17:30:16 UTC
Well, there's a logical difference and reälized between the general category of those who argue about arguing, and the narrower category of those who argue about arguing in order to confront the actual issues.

I've certainly found myself frustrated by people who, when they've sensed that I'm about to close-up what will be an air-tight case, declare I don't want to argue! or begin actively arguing that it's wrong to argue, or even begin arguing against arguing about arguing. But the results of an argument don't depend simply upon the brute facts, but also upon the protocols for dealing with those brute facts. Some protocols - modes of argument - can lead to a shared best approximation of the truth; but if people are mistaken or less-than-honest about their modes of argument, then a best approximation of the truth is markèdly improbable.

As to people who meta-argue in order to avoid confronting the actual issues, yeah, I think that most of them are cowards; but (at least on rare occasion) they may actually be proceeding from other ( ... )

Reply

oxymoronia February 20 2009, 13:01:28 UTC
I think the example you gave could also be interpreted as a form of cowardice (fear of the consequences), but of course it would depend on the exact situation itself.

I find that as time goes by, I have less patience and time for when people use additional and irrelevant arguments as waffle to delay the arrival at a conclusion.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up