I think Hannah Arendt said that one of the great achievements of Stalinism was to replace all discussion involving arguments and evidence with the question of motive – Christopher Hitchens<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n You’ve all read something like this, or heard something like this, I am sure. \u00a0Something like…<\/p>\n – Oh, you’re only talking about the oppression of women under Islam\u00a0because you’re a wayycist!\u00a0<\/em>(Pope Myers<\/a>)<\/p>\n – \u00a0Oh, you’re only talking about how environmental policies immiserate the poor because you’re being paid off by the Koch Brothers!<\/i> (David Appel<\/a>)<\/p>\n – Oh, you are only concerned about the ninety-two Sobibors\u00a0because you want to control women’s bodies! \u00a0<\/em>(certain comentators here)<\/p>\n – \u00a0Oh, Mandela only opposed apartheid\u00a0because he was a filthy commie!\u00a0<\/em>(certain lice you can find in WND and similar outlets; excellent response here<\/a>).<\/p>\n This stuff is a kind of mental crack. \u00a0It gives a quick high, makes the user aggressive and pointless to deal with, and is ultimately completely toxic.<\/p>\n So, here is why you should leave that stuff well alone.<\/p>\n Motives do not affect the correctness of the<\/span><\/b> argument<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Suppose Person A makes an argument for the distribution of condoms in sub-Saharan Africa, and though he\u00a0says<\/em> his motive is to counteract the spread of AIDS, his real motive is a fear of too high birthrates among black Africans. \u00a0How does his motive affect the effectiveness or otherwise of such a program when it comes to combatting AIDS?<\/p>\n You cannot always be sure what the motive is<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Take the above scenario, and assume Person A makes it to Person B who believes A is sincere and so goes on to make the argument himself. \u00a0I present the argument to you, and\u00a0I don’t tell you from whom I have received it<\/em>. \u00a0How can you possibly tell?<\/p>\n Having a stake in an issue cuts both ways<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The\u00a0ad hominem<\/em>\u00a0argument isn’t completely invalid. \u00a0If someone has spent ten years working in the field of climate science; chances are, he is more knowledgeable than the man in the street. \u00a0However, no such truth applies to having a stake in an argument. \u00a0We should try to see where someone is coming from, sure, but that does not make them more likely to be correct. \u00a0The principle negative effects of global warming will be on the equatorial peoples; it does not follow that they have better climate science than the northern ones.<\/p>\n Similarly, I’ve been informed that no man should discuss abortion because he does not have the same stake in it as a woman does (this is a variant of the ‘check your privilege’ meme). \u00a0One could just as easily say that no woman should discuss abortion because her stake in the matter makes it less likely that she will objectively analyse it.<\/p>\n Which of these arguments is right? \u00a0Neither. \u00a0Both. \u00a0Who cares?<\/p>\n It makes you<\/span> stupid, because being wicked isn’t the same thing as being wrong<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n No matter how rancid a person is, it is unlikely that he is 100% wrong about everything, and it is worth noting the things he does get right. \u00a0You think you could learn nothing from Holocaust deniers? \u00a0Well, Raul Hilberg,<\/a>\u00a0who wrote the seminal study on the Holocaust,\u00a0The Destruction of the European Jews<\/em> would disagree, and says he’s used stuff from neo-Nazi publishing houses. \u00a0Similarly, it was David Irving who showed that Oswald Mosley was receiving direct payment from the offices of Goebbels, and dug up a great deal of information on Churchill that is both factually accurate and not in most histories.<\/p>\n![\"STALIN\"](\"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/prussian\/files\/2014\/03\/STALIN.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n