You cannot evaluate the "correctness" of arguments about many things in the political space. Bob says that the country would be better if taxes were raised on the rich and spent on the poor. Charlie says that this would make the country worse and a better approach is to focus on educational attainment. Who is right? How do you arrive at a situation where both Bob and Charlie agree with each other?
Experience tells us that this isn't possible. They're probably arguing from different assumptions, they very likely have different ideas about what "better" means, and even if they could agree on those things, which path would actually yield better results is impossible to simulate or predict accurately.
That doesn't mean Bob or Charlie have discarded rationality, it just means that pure application of logic cannot solve most of the problems on which politics dwells.
When you say "attach the Guardian's arguments" after I just said that their arguments are vague and emotional, you're requesting something that won't go anywhere. The Guardian argues that companies should feel a moral obligation to pay more tax. At the same time, they don't appear to feel that obligation themselves. That's a fundamental inconsistency that invalidates their own "argument" (using the term loosely). There's nothing to refute: they did it themselves.
> You cannot evaluate the "correctness" of arguments about many things in the political space.
Of course you can. How do you vote, just pick the guy who you'd like to have a beer with? Give me a break.
Again, you're starting off by rejecting rationality as an approach, so I really don't need to prove that you're irrational here.
> How do you arrive at a situation where both Bob and Charlie agree with each other?
We don't. Bob and Charlie's agreement is entirely unnecessary. Why is this even your goal?
> which path would actually yield better results is impossible to simulate or predict accurately.
This is rarely true in practice for major voting issues.
> That doesn't mean Bob or Charlie have discarded rationality, it just means that pure application of logic cannot solve most of the problems on which politics dwells.
Nobody is claiming that Bob and Charlie have discarded rationality, but I'm claiming that you're discarding rationality. You've again state this fact for me.
If logic can't solve your problem, it can't be solved.
> The Guardian argues that companies should feel a moral obligation to pay more tax.
That's not The Guardian's argument as far as I know, so let's stop right there. I doubt anyone with The Guardian's caliber would bother with the idea that companies should feel.
Experience tells us that this isn't possible. They're probably arguing from different assumptions, they very likely have different ideas about what "better" means, and even if they could agree on those things, which path would actually yield better results is impossible to simulate or predict accurately.
That doesn't mean Bob or Charlie have discarded rationality, it just means that pure application of logic cannot solve most of the problems on which politics dwells.
When you say "attach the Guardian's arguments" after I just said that their arguments are vague and emotional, you're requesting something that won't go anywhere. The Guardian argues that companies should feel a moral obligation to pay more tax. At the same time, they don't appear to feel that obligation themselves. That's a fundamental inconsistency that invalidates their own "argument" (using the term loosely). There's nothing to refute: they did it themselves.