Dear boy, the entire argument above is in itself
fallacious.
The Oxford dictionary defines standards as:
1 a level of quality or attainment.
2 a required or agreed level of quality or attainment.
3 something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative
evaluations
Levels, measures and norms are by definition absolute. You are
either above or below the level. You either match the norms, or you
don't. Measures, by their very nature, must be absolute, or there
would be no point trying to measure anything.
If you choose to ignore this one fundamental point, then Mix Metal
is in fact correct in observing:
And what is making a "good argument" and a "stupid argument" ?
My so call good arguement might be seen as a stupid argument to
someone else and so can your "good arguement" be someone's studpid
arguement.
After all, if there is no commonly accepted set of standards
that constitute "good" or "bad" arguments, it becomes entirely
subjective and people can claim that arguments are "good" or "bad"
according to whim.
If you want to see the forest for the trees, well and good - let's
do that. Here you are, arguing for a code of behaviour, but when
pressed you shift the goalposts according to whatever happens to be
convenient at that particular minute, going as far as to argue for
grey areas to be applied to standards which are absolute by nature.
How, pray tell, do you expect people to accept what you propose
when your own conduct lacks consistency to that extent?
