4 ms·
I think ultimately this boils down to the "diry hands" problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_hands). As long as
by emsy 8y ago
I think ultimately this boils down to the "diry hands" problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_hands). As long as the general public isn't equipped to identify an intentionally uncharitable interpretation (and punish bad actors for it), you will find yourself on the losing end of the argument. I do think you should generally interpret opposing arguments charitably, but you should also be able to quickly switch gears if necessary. Otherwise you will be outplayed by your opponents.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoDepends on what game you're playing. Are you trying to win the argument? Or are you trying to win your listeners? You can go against bad actors, with charity, and still point out where they refuse to commit to a position, where they change positions, and where they otherwise argue in bad faith. I wouldn't do so the first time it happens in a conversation, but if it keeps happening, sure, use the record of the conversation to point out what they're doing. Note well, however, that if I'm reading this, and I see that you have judged the other side as arguing in bad faith, and you try to document that, and I don't agree, then I think you have a hair trigger at least, and perhaps that you are arguing in bad faith. That is, you have to extend more charity than a normal reader, rather than less.
- emsy 8y agoGood point. I think the game you should play when entering an argument is finding the truth. I think what I was trying to say was that if someone changes the game by arguing in bad faith (and for the sake of the point, undoubtedly so), you should note that and point it out or play along.