|
|
|
|
|
|
by orangesite
770 days ago
|
|
|
Treating everyone as if they were engaging in good faith is equally not a good approach to discourse. I get where you're coming from but the system you're proposing creates a situation where it's cheaper to pollute the discourse than the consequences you face for polluting the discourse. |
|
|
In fact, it is the best approach to discourse, and the only one that does not impugn one's own credibility. It is correct to presume that everyone is arguing in good faith unless and until they make it explicit that they are arguing in bad faith.
> I get where you're coming from but the system you're proposing creates a situation where it's cheaper to pollute the discourse than the consequences you face for polluting the discourse.
You're misunderstanding. You're not 'polluting the discourse' by having bad motivations for making your arguments, because your motivations per se are not part of the discourse. Someone who has a bad motive for making a correct argument is still making a correct argument.
One only 'pollutes the discourse' by making bad arguments, but those arguments can be challenged for being bad arguments in themselves, which must be done prior to questioning motives.
Only when someone has (a) made a provably bad argument, and then (b) revealed that their bad argument was deliberately made in pursuit of an ulterior purpose, is it proper to criticize their intentions.
Until that point has been reached, challenging people's motives instead of refuting the substance of their arguments is itself an instance of arguing in bad faith.