Michael, we are talking past one another. You want to say that your points are an argument; I see them as statements of a point of view rather than an argument. If you wish to call them arguments, I'm obviously not going to stop you from doing so. I'll just need to take into account that we have different meanings in mind.
An illustration. You say you believe the followng:
Union leaders have closed their mind to creative changes, which are structural in nature.
That's fine. Lots of folk believe it. But if you wish to try to persuade me or others that is the case, you need to offer us evidence that is the case. It needs to be made more specific--what "creative changes" and which "structures". What events lead you to believe this? What makes you think that those events support such a broad generalization?
Again, I don't deny that some folks believe as you do. And I have no problem with your believing it. My problem, again, is when you wish to argue it's "true" or, simply and more pragmatically, to convince others.
If you are saying to me something like you have a point of view that is different from mine and that point of view leads to the following conclusions, fine. If you are saying to me you have a point of view and it is true and I should believe it, then that's not fine. It can, however, be the beginning of a conversation. If so, offer some evidence. Not simply that you believe it because you believe it.
Finally, I took only the one point at the end of your post to illustrate this. I could have taken any of them. |
