He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
- John Stuart Mill
Good definition.
And you’re a better person than I am, I tried a few times but felt really icky really quickly.
I just gotta believe there’s something that offers a coherent defense of their positions without (or at least, with less of) the absolute craziness. Foreign policy ones, sure, Foreign Affairs works. But for a defense of say, trump’s immigration strategy or something, I’d love to have what the National Review used to be arguing for it, just to know what I’m missing.
Let me know if you find it. At this point I sincerely believe I’m not missing anything, and that’s a sad thought.