Crypt·o·phobe

Well, I guess this raises the question: is it good to use shame or the feeling of public disapproval to achieve (good!) political ends?

Ideally, it would be best if each person could be convinced of the truth as to what is best without any rhetoric, but "purely rationally" (or, purely rationally after a shared base foundation of ideas of what is good, and things like that.)

But totally accomplishing this seems, um, is "intractable" the right word?

So, does this mean that we should [rhetoric] throw that ideal out the window? [/(?maybe?)rhetoric]

What standards of discussion and debate should we hold ourselves to, knowing that those we disagree with might not follow the same standards?

I find the rhetoric on this site "personally effective" (I mean, as someone who already agreed with the viewpoint it expresses, the rhetoric "resonates" or whatever with me.), but does that mean that we should use it?

I don't know that the rhetoric it uses works because the viewpoint is right, instead of regardless of it being right. I think it probably doesn't. That is, I think that effectively the same rhetoric could be used to argue for something false, and that it would be pretty much as convincing.

Should we use/accept(/tolerate?) rhetoric that can be used for bad just as much as for good?

I don't know.

If we should, this seems like it could work, but I feel like maybe we shouldn't.

Thoughts?