First, two recent John C. Wright posts:
The Argument of Antimonogamy.
Disloyalty to the Void.
Now, my response to his second piece.
And his response to my response.
What do you think? Is Mr. Wright right, and there's a place for fuming and thunder? Or am I right and we should chose words carefully so that others are more inclined to listen to us?
And what's the answer to his question: "In the case given above, where Bukkake and BDSM and prostitution are portrayed as normal — what is the correct tone to set? That of Socrates, honest, detached, ironic, polite? or that of John the Baptist, who warned of the wrath to come?"
wrt JC Wright's post on Friday 5/27 "The Vinegar Decision" -- Joe, NO MEAN FEAT to win an argument with/convert JC Wright! Way to Go!
ReplyDelete-Dad
You're right, Joe. The purpose of a moral argument should be to win converts or at least to plant seeds of ideas that may mature later. Just scoring points by denouncing one's opponent isn't likely to win anyone over. Venting may feel good but it rarely does good. One may be passionate but should not be intemperate.
ReplyDelete-Mom/Grandma B