But, as you should know from being on this forum, there are people who claim to have thought this stuff through, and who do not share our beliefs on how to acquire reasonable beliefs. In fact, some of them seem not to be particularly fond of reasonable beliefs. These people also find lousy justification for all sorts of lousy beliefs. I needn't name those people for you, need I?

It is frustrating isn't it? To want to force my beliefs would be hypocritical, leaving me with persuasion as the only option. Some people do not care for reasoned argument, should I resort to emotional pleas? Should I persuade them using methods I feel are unsound, even if my reasons for holding the belief are?

Take animal rights or abortion for examples, there are people on both sides of each fence who justify their position with emotion. Logic seems cold to many people, thus making persuasion with it difficult...

What is forcing your beliefs? And why would forcing your beliefs be hypocritical? Why is persuasion the only option to forcing your beliefs? If a person does not care for reasoned argument (as, apparently, some do not) then why would you argue with them in the first place? You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. And why would you want to deal with an unreasonable person. (Of course, it may be that some of them think they are being reasonable. It is that which can be frustrating). How does emotion justify any belief? I do not understand that.

Is using reasoned argument forcing your beliefs? Why?

... If a person does not care for reasoned argument (as, apparently, some do not) then why would you argue with them in the first place? You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. And why would you want to deal with an unreasonable person. ...

What is forcing your beliefs? And why would forcing your beliefs be hypocritical? Why is persuasion the only option to forcing your beliefs? If a person does not care for reasoned argument (as, apparently, some do not) then why would you argue with them in the first place? You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. And why would you want to deal with an unreasonable person. (Of course, it may be that some of them think they are being reasonable. It is that which can be frustrating). How does emotion justify any belief? I do not understand that.

Is using reasoned argument forcing your beliefs? Why?

I think you are misunderstanding Scottydamion, as I do not believe that Scottydamion is equating "reasoned argument" with "force". But that is not what interests me. This is what does interest me:



The above seems odd coming from you, as I have read threads (perhaps at another site, if it is not allowed to say such things of this one) in which you have been arguing with people who evidently do not care for reasoned argument, and prefer spouting gibberish. Of course, in some cases, you have been drawn into them, where the persons did not at first make it clear that that is what they were doing, yet you do continue the discussion with them sometimes. Perhaps, though, you are hoping for something that you do not expect to result from it, or there may be some other reason for this, as, indeed, it can be irritating for someone spouting gibberish to be left doing such a thing at a site that purports to be about intellectual discussion.

For one instance, Anyway, this analogy recognizes that proof is on the same continuum as other forms of persuasion. Proof is not a kind of persuasion as you suggest. You also suggested that proof has no purpose but persuasion (something like, what good is proof unless it persuades). None of this is right, since it assimilates proof to persuasion.