Re: [fc-uk-discuss] Silly argument (was Re: Steal This Film!)

[David Berry]

On 31 Aug 2006, at 00:47, Tom Chance wrote: I  assume you're familiar with the principle of charitable interpretation,  according to which you should assume the other person isn't an idiot and has  made a coherent argument. According to this principle you interpret their  argument such that it makes as much sense as possible, then critique that. In  doing so you avoid harmful misrepresentations, making your arguments stronger  and more compelling in the process. Instead you seem to make the least charitable interpretation, as  the "assumptions" exchange above demonstrates, and use it to expound upon a  theme that may or may not have been what the victim was discussing. One last note on the generalisation of this charitable interpretative methodology... Of course, this seems to be the way in which the majority of the population was interpreting the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) dossier presented to Parliament by Tony Blair, and of course, his now infamous claim that the UK was 45 minutes from a missile strike. Even though we now realise that the argument he was making was largely incoherent, invented or plain dissembling we (the people) gave the benefit of the doubt.  That led to Parliament supporting the Iraq War (which incidentally isn't technically a war apparently) and our involvement in very messy, morally ambiguous and ultimately unpleasant campaign. The fall-outs from which we are beginning to reap in terms of loss of civil liberties, terrorism and the politics of fear.  But of course, the Prime Minister wasn't playing your game, he was counting on the above interpretative charity, indeed, he was playing the game of power.

_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss