Might Makes Right

[Sal1981]

The common denunciation that someone is wrong because of the use of force, as per arguments sake, I've always found to be a bit lopsided.

Of course, if I claim, as per argument, that I'm correct because I can muscle my argument through, then not only is my argument poor, but it's only sustained by force.

But without some sense of "force", be it by muscle or Law-enacting police or strength of military or whatever - force is necessary for any argument to hold any sway one way or another. Think about it; what good is a Law without anything to enforce it?

I argue this is somewhat the same with any "argument": If you can't demonstrate by using some measure of force it will just be empty argumentation with no backing merit.



What do you think of this train of thought? Am I just befuddling Law and argument together? If so, what difference is there?

[Baruch]

Force - more than one definition.  One kind of force my be the rationality of the argument.  Another might be a thug taking your wallet.  The first is good, though passion would also be a plus in some cases.  But the second is definitely bad ... just because thugs are not worthy of argument.

[Solitary]

In logic using force is not logical, because it doesn't mean the one using force is correct just because he used force. I go into a biker bar and one guy has a tattoo of and angel on his arm and another of a cross saying God is love, An d I go in and say God is a fairy tail. Who do you think wins the argument, and who do you think is correct. 

[Baruch]

"I can muscle my argument through" ... point being, the OP isn't using a black jack.  Maybe just showing off his massive muscles to Arnold or Sylvester ;-)

[Jannabear]

It's a primitive way of thinking, one that we're atleast starting to branch away from, though VERY slowly.