I have noticed during the short time I've been on here that when things get heated, the two (or more, who are not agreeing with something) users often consider there to be a sort of objective way of argueing. They would much rather defend their argument by saying how unflawed the way they went about the argument was. I suppose it comes with being a nerd who enjoys philosophy so much or something.
I think the object of that line of argumentation is entirely different; although the intention to that line of argumentation may differ from person to person.
My personal intent is to make sure that it is not the conclusion (the predication, the thought-object) which is important. I may be wrong, the encyclopedia may be wrong and even more importantly: any conclusion (predication, thought-object) is always one locked in space and time and with the changing of space and time the conclusion (predication, thought-object) will
Because of this the only important issue at hand is the method one uses to deduce truth (a true conclusion, predication, thought-object); not the statement of such a deduced conclusion (predication, thought-object). In fact: such statements are the only statements making no sense at all because one would necessarily need to deduce the method which was used for the formulation of that particular conclusion (predication, thought-object).
I know peoples intentions usually are 'good' when stating 'facts' (conclusions, predications, thought-objects) though. So I, in no way, mean any disrespect to anybody who behaves in such a manner. I am merely trying to say that it makes no sense at all to make a statement wihout noting the standing in space and time. Both are needed to understand the full meaning of any conclusion (predication, thought-object). The reason for this is because you hold those two against your own personal method for deducing truth (a true conclusion, predication, thought-object). Therefore any 'faulty' conclusion (predication, thought-object) is due to a faulty reasoning (a 'faulty' method). Any correct, but alien conclusion (predication, thought-object) is due to standing.
In my opinion we use three things in any reasoning:
- The conclusion (predication, thought-object)
The importance of the three being in just the order I placed them in. The reason for this is because there is only one method that facilitates true conclusions (predications, thought-objects), there are an infinite number of standing and for each standing are infinite amounts of conclusions, predications, thought-objects).
I hope this helps.