Alright, let's take this for a test drive, then: I don't really think that good-faith argument exists, in general.
The idea of good faith is old and important in law; without good faith, it would be hard to enter into contracts. The underlying emotional content that we are reaching for when we try to embrace good faith is the emotion of authenticity.
However, I don't think that people are capable of being authentic. In order to be authentic, people must intend what they are saying and doing, and I am not sure that people can have internal worlds which are rich enough to enable authenticity. I certainly believe that people believe that they are acting in good faith, when they claim it, but I cannot verify that people are indeed good-faith actors.
In the olden days, good faith was achieved with a token, a bonafides of some sort. This is because, even in the olden days, it was well-understood that one cannot simply take people at their word when people say that they are arguing in good faith. This suggests that people have known and understood for a long time that good faith doesn't really exist.
Further, I think that when the rules say, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith," they mean that we must construct steelmen before commenting. After all, giving good-faith assumptions to bad-faith arguments would be a waste of effort.
For your edification, you should know that I don't like to argue my positions.
The idea of good faith is old and important in law; without good faith, it would be hard to enter into contracts. The underlying emotional content that we are reaching for when we try to embrace good faith is the emotion of authenticity.
However, I don't think that people are capable of being authentic. In order to be authentic, people must intend what they are saying and doing, and I am not sure that people can have internal worlds which are rich enough to enable authenticity. I certainly believe that people believe that they are acting in good faith, when they claim it, but I cannot verify that people are indeed good-faith actors.
In the olden days, good faith was achieved with a token, a bonafides of some sort. This is because, even in the olden days, it was well-understood that one cannot simply take people at their word when people say that they are arguing in good faith. This suggests that people have known and understood for a long time that good faith doesn't really exist.
Further, I think that when the rules say, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith," they mean that we must construct steelmen before commenting. After all, giving good-faith assumptions to bad-faith arguments would be a waste of effort.
For your edification, you should know that I don't like to argue my positions.