> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
[snip]
> There's another possibility, one that seems more tenable to me. You have
> more sympathy for Jeroen's views than mine - therefore his mode
> of argument
> seems more agreeable to you.
A fine, fine theory, except wrong. I agree with you, not Jeroen, on the
issue. I'm more disturbed by sloppy defense of what I believe than sloppy
defense of what I don't believe. Consider who is weakened by poor argument.
What does it do to the United States when we defend ourselves with arguments
that don't stand up? What do *you* conclude when your opponent resorts to
ad hominem attacks or a double standard?
I expect people who are taking an erroneous position to resort to illogic
and poor argument. You seem to think that I am pointing out flaws in your
argument in order to help those you're arguing with. Imagine you're
defending our house with a rifle and I see that you're pointing it the wrong
direction, so I nudge it into the correct position. What's your response?
To complain about my superior attitude? Argue that I'm helping the enemy?
Do you imagine that you are less able to defend your position?
Nick
