I don't really see pointing out a legitimate problem with an argument as "wounding" someone. Frankly, a bad source seriously undermines an argument. In a discussion about, say, the benefits and risks of vaccination, one might quote doctors, immunologists, and even parents. If one were to quote, instead, Andrew Wakefield or Joseph Mercola, someone could be well justified in just dismissing what is being said outright. Even if what someone is saying is 100% factual, the baggage attached by including such people in the discussion completely poisons the well, and thus an otherwise strong argument is weakened needlessly.
Argument and discussion demand accuracy and precision. Language is tricky, even more so through text without the benefit of facial expressions and other cues. I mean, in an informal setting like this, of course no one is asking for cited references and bibliographies and the vetting of every possible source. But the fact remains, it would also be absurd to just say: "Eh, say whatever you want, it doesn't matter if you can actually back it up with argument and sources." There is the value in trying to do better in how we argue - and I'd think that a good way to accomplish that is to point out places where such improvement can be made.
I mean, which of these two statements is more valuable?
-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this.
-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this. Hey: there's a problem with source X you're using. If you use someone else, your argument will be even stronger!
If "one among many otherwise reliable links" comes from a not-so-reputable source, then pointing that out helps the poster in the future to not include that source, so that ALL of that poster's links will be reliable. Being told "hey, you're wrong about this" is not an "attack," unless someone is more concerned with looking correct than actually being correct.
With regards to this OP: the issues raised are real, and the arguments presented are strong ones (though I do disagree with the ongoing vilification of Monsanto, a company guilty of almost none of the things it is constantly accused of.) The problem is that those otherwise strong arguments can only be weakened by including the words of Dr. Shiva, someone who lies about being a physicist and who places her own personal political ideology over the actual lives and survival of the people she purports to represent. If pointing out that including Dr. Shiva is a bad rhetorical move somehow equates to some kind of attack that has "wounded" the OP, then I'm left to wonder just how fragile the nature of conversation has become.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 23/3/16 14:53 (UTC)Argument and discussion demand accuracy and precision. Language is tricky, even more so through text without the benefit of facial expressions and other cues. I mean, in an informal setting like this, of course no one is asking for cited references and bibliographies and the vetting of every possible source. But the fact remains, it would also be absurd to just say: "Eh, say whatever you want, it doesn't matter if you can actually back it up with argument and sources." There is the value in trying to do better in how we argue - and I'd think that a good way to accomplish that is to point out places where such improvement can be made.
I mean, which of these two statements is more valuable?
-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this.
-You're totally right. I share your opinion on this. Hey: there's a problem with source X you're using. If you use someone else, your argument will be even stronger!
If "one among many otherwise reliable links" comes from a not-so-reputable source, then pointing that out helps the poster in the future to not include that source, so that ALL of that poster's links will be reliable. Being told "hey, you're wrong about this" is not an "attack," unless someone is more concerned with looking correct than actually being correct.
With regards to this OP: the issues raised are real, and the arguments presented are strong ones (though I do disagree with the ongoing vilification of Monsanto, a company guilty of almost none of the things it is constantly accused of.) The problem is that those otherwise strong arguments can only be weakened by including the words of Dr. Shiva, someone who lies about being a physicist and who places her own personal political ideology over the actual lives and survival of the people she purports to represent. If pointing out that including Dr. Shiva is a bad rhetorical move somehow equates to some kind of attack that has "wounded" the OP, then I'm left to wonder just how fragile the nature of conversation has become.