Saturday, August 17, 2013
The scrutiny of argument (#1660)
What "feels" right is no equivalent of what is right. Now once in a blue moon the two may intersect but that is more to do with statistics than it has to do with some internal guide we may think we possess. Now we all have bullshit meters that readily go off when the absurd is tried to be passed off as the normal, yet even our bullshit meters are no match for just honest logic and common sense. What really all of debate boils down to is who are you and what your principles for living are. Once all things are filtered through who you are and what you represent, you can then begin to be objective about the facts of whatever it is you are advocating. Establishing a baseline of virtue in all your arguments gives you the high ground even before you begin. Let's say you want to argue for equality. You have already begun from a point that is mostly accepted as correct. All you have to do then is to reinforce your argument for equality with some examples of how equality is beneficial for all of humanity and what humanity would be like without it. Most would agree that you will be on the right side of this argument and very little can be offered to rebut your claim. Know how to approach all who would take the side of lesser principled concepts and attack those lesser principled concepts with higher principled ideals. There is always the bigger picture to reference toward so when arguing parts and pieces of policies that inhibit the bigger picture you are already on the side of virtue. I have found that good and honest ideals will win the day against those who would diminish those very same ideals.