Heh. No, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong when convinced that it's the case.
Yes, I've seen you do it. I just think you have a tendency to defend the indefensible.
But, I'm posting in the mirror there.
And here's something I often wonder about you: do you argue because you actually think that somebody is wrong or because you like to argue? Seems to me that this is about the latter - hence your rather contrived "processing Jews" example.
Both. Arguing can be enjoyable. It's not usually worth it if you know your opponent is right though.
It IS worth it to expose different thought patterns however, so sometimes it's valuable to pursue even
once you see weaknesses in your own argument.
In this case, I made a quick correction quip (about the need to define an objective valuation - the good),
and was floored (as often happens) to see that my meaning wasn't obvious.
As to the processing of jews, I find that taking extreme cases is often the best way to show someone
the fact that their interpretation is unsustainable. The only problem with it is people who cheat by
pulling Godwin's Law out - a cheap out since the very beginning.
