That "Liberty" graphic is a tremedous piece. This is the first I've seen of it, but it should be placed on CD-ROM and circulated to every library and school in America. How about even a preview in movie theaters?! The simplicity of the concept has been captured here in its most fundamental form.
While I agree with the point you both make concerning the danger and potential damage of a bad argument in defense of the right principle lost to the wrong person, the dilemma lies with the ability of people to learn from mistakes. The consequence of the engagement has the abilty to encourage one to learn from the process of debate to develop a logical argument. In my case, this is how I learned that my positions (leftist conjecture maintained in the naivete of post teen-dom) were wrong. Positions that were wrong could not be adequately defended. I learned this the hard way and was forced to re-evaluate the contradictions in my belief system. Beliefs were quickly overcome by thought process through which I have been developing ever since. In the same way, I expect that some (not all) of those who bravely attempt to defend the right principles in a public forum should be commended for the effort on the one hand, and corrected where necessary on the other.
Bad defenders are indeed a liability. Good ones, nevertheless, are priceless! Consider these threads to be the vehicle for this process.
To be a bit specific about using a bad argument to justify a good thing, consider those who justifiy the free enterprise system based on their religious beliefs. I consider free enterprise to be a very good thing; but it works for all religions that I know of, and is entirely justifiable on economic principles, regardless of one's religion (or the lack thereof). Indeed, every economic system, from slavery to feudalism to communism (the system originally practiced by the Mayflower passengers), has been "justified" by the then-prevailing religious regime. Religious arguments in support of economic systems are inherently fallacious. Those who mix the two -- merely because they are emotionally attached to both -- are bound to confuse, and sometimes even repel, those who (correctly) find the religious argument unpersuasive in the field of economics.
That "Liberty" graphic is a tremedous piece. This is the first I've seen of it, but it should be placed on CD-ROM and circulated to every library and school in America. The author is working with some people to do exactly that. Actually the words are the Epilogue of a book called "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" which is required reading in many high schools in places like Eastern Europe, but not, paradoxically, in this country. It has been translated into 30 languages and the project continues to translate it into more. You might want to look it up and get it. It is a primer in economics that utterly ridicules socialism, wrong-headed politicians and other govt stupidities, all done in a very comical, easy to read story.
While I agree with the point you both make concerning the danger and potential damage of a bad argument in defense of the right principle lost to the wrong person, the dilemma lies with the ability of people to learn from mistakes. The consequence of the engagement has the abilty to encourage one to learn from the process of debate to develop a logical argument. In my case, this is how I learned that my positions (leftist conjecture maintained in the naivete of post teen-dom) were wrong.
I understand and have a similar background. It is a practical matter and is not productive to be too harsh, which I have a tendency to do. But I deal with the results of this foolishness on a daily basis, so it kind of hits me in the middle.
I learned this the hard way and was forced to re-evaluate the contradictions in my belief system. Beliefs were quickly overcome by thought process through which I have been developing ever since.
It is the willingness to recognize those contradictions in oneself that is the whole issue. First one has to recognize the value of contradictions, the real issue of this thread. That often proves difficult to impossible, depending upon who one is dealing with.
I expect that some (not all) of those who bravely attempt to defend the right principles in a public forum should be commended for the effort on the one hand, and corrected where necessary on the other.
Yes, it is an education process. That is all one can do, really.
Bad defenders are indeed a liability. Good ones, nevertheless, are priceless! Consider these threads to be the vehicle for this process.
I've always thought so. There are many venues, many discussions. Like the book I mentioned. There are many people working in many ways to change things. But it also depends upon what you mean by 'right principles' since this means different things to different people. Which is why I said what I did. It is the importance of this particular thread. Knowing fallacies permits one to point out the contradiction. If the person won't recognize the fallacy, nothing more can be done. But at least you know you don't have to take that person seriously anymore, except as a danger.