[Reader-list] Debate on Iraq (3) theory

[Jamie Dow]

I think I agree with much else that you wrote, and it sounds as though you
agree with me on at least some points.
You ended with (apart from your final rhetorical question!) a more
theoretical consideration, which I don't really understand. Could you spell
it out for me? You wrote:

"It is one thing to disqualify arguments as not being good, another to deny
and simplify their existence."

Which of these disjuncts represents what you thought I was doing?
And what would be the difference between (i) disqualifying an argument as
not being good; and (ii) denying its existence?
(I suppose you could deny the existence of an argument by claiming that
noone ever used such-and-such an argument, but that doesn't seem relevant
here....)
And what would it be to "simplify the existence" of an argument?

I suppose I thought I was talking actually about REASONS, and searching for
GOOD REASONS for courses of action.
For reasons of clarity, I find it better to talk about (good) reasons than
about arguments. Why? Well, a bad argument is still an argument, but a bad
reason for xing is no good reason at all for xing.

Talking of reasons also allows important possibilities like:
That's a reason for xing, but it's not SUFFICIENT reason to x, in the face
of contrary reasons against xing.

But I've really no idea what your sentence quoted above was suggesting: it
sounds like you think I've made an improper inference somewhere. But I can't
understand quite what.

Sorry if this all sounds belligerent. I think it's worth pursuing.

Yours
Jamie