Actually, one person is right but we just don't know which because we don't have more information. That's a subtle distinction.Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
Given a metric for gain that we can all agree on, then, it is quite possible to acknowledge that the gains associated with raising taxes is much lower than the gains associated with lower taxes. You can argue that such a metric is impossible to construct because it is not possible to get unanimous agreement. However, disagreement is exactly the consequence of people simply having different sets of knowledge about things. One group might want to construct a metric such that gains with raising taxes are better, and another group might want a metric that gives a different result. However, if everyone had the same knowledge, wouldn't you agree that there is a metric that we would agree on?
Of course, your example is a poor example, since fiscal policy is such a pervasive matter that it is very difficult for one to understand everything related to it, hence it in a typical debate it is very easy to to construct an persuasive argument for the "other side" that the debater did not anticipate.
That's part of my definition for an idiot. I do not mean someone that's "stupid," rather I am talking about a stubborn person that cannot think and learn.Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
If I remember correctly Moral Relativism (not the same as the idea in the quote) is full of holes and has already been refuted (not 100% sure about that). In a lot ways, I liken Moral Relativism as an ethical maxim for the philosophically stupid and lazy in today's global society where respecting false/wrong ideas and political correctness reins free (Some of the stuff that I hear about other countries are just plain wrong but too bad we can't do anything about it because Moral Relativism is the hip thing in town).Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused