Quote:
K said:
Logical arguments are supported by evidence, and thus the weight of the evidence determines who wins. I think you are talking about philosophical logic arguments, which are just pure arguments divorced from the rules of evidence.
|
You are correct about arguments and evidence. This is especially true in science and the scientific method.
Quote:
K said:
Moral arguments merely have persuasive power. They can't be proved nor disproved because they neither need nor accept the use of evidence or other objective criteria.
|
This is not entirely correct. Moral arguments can be logical ones, but one must first define a premise for them. It is entirely possible top construct a logically ironclad moral argument complete with evidence, but that argument will rest on some premise that is accepted as true. If the premise is successfully challenged, the whole argument comes down. For example, if we take the premise that suffering is generally a bad thing, it is very, very easy to construct logical moral arguments against wars of aggression, torture, bullying and a large number of other things and objective evidence is not hard to come by.
The problem with the MoD + retreat discussion seems to be that you and the rest of the forum have very differing standards of evidence. I for example take Illwinter's word on how MoD currently works with retreat vs how it should work as very strong evidence that the mechanic is broken to the point of being an abusive exploit while you obviously do not.