Reason and evidence are neutral ground.This may be true. However, I think you are particularly sensitive to this specific persuasion tactic, because there are a good dozen other methods (emotional appeal, bandwagonism, jingoism, transference, etc) that are used constantly by people in order to win over others in ways that have nothing to do with the actual merit of their opinion. They can be considered 'cheating' just as much as bringing God in to the picture.
In fact, you could say that's relying on a famous or authority figure's opinion, heh. Relying on the name of God to win an argument, I suppose.
I think it is reasonable to demand a rational opposition argument if one expects you to be swayed from your own opinion in group decision-making, but I don't think it is entirely reasonable to expect people not to employ persuasion methods other than strict reasoning and empirical fact, or to take that personally.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 03:50 pm (UTC)In fact, you could say that's relying on a famous or authority figure's opinion, heh. Relying on the name of God to win an argument, I suppose.
I think it is reasonable to demand a rational opposition argument if one expects you to be swayed from your own opinion in group decision-making, but I don't think it is entirely reasonable to expect people not to employ persuasion methods other than strict reasoning and empirical fact, or to take that personally.