3 ms·

be more rational/scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet But that already presupposes the answer to one of the major arguments. Ther

be more rational/scientific about this. Forget gut feelings, put down a spreadsheet But that already presupposes the answer to one of the major arguments. There's a fair philosophical case to be made for "it doesn't matter if the empirical net is positive or negative: the bottom line is that I have a natural right to defend myself and my family, even if other people cannot or choose not to do so themselves". Sorry, I don't mean to start the actual gun debate here. I'm just trying to show that the underlying question presents a false choice fallacy. It's incorrect to simply ask, "should the government make this regulation or not?". There's space for a lot more nuance in there: "is this a good idea or a bad idea? If it's a good idea, is it something that should be part of the private sector's purview? If not, can government do it effectively?"

noobermin 11y ago
The basic argument I have against this is that people say things that make assumptions they don't realize and those assumptions can be testable. Let me give an example. Say you have a liberal who says, "regardless of whether we go into debt or not," since that is an objectively measurable observable, "we should spend more on education because education is something I value." That already has a problem: it assumes spending more on education increases the quality of education; therein lies a testable hypothesis that we can demonstrate true or false. If a liberal is offended by that notion, that is what I'm arguing against--for me, ideas just aren't "so obvious" that they can't be demonstrated, if it's true, there better be evidence for its truth. If, for example, we spend more on education than other nations and we still have subpar outcomes (which is true, actually), then the stated reasoning "go into debt because we value education anyway" contains a false assumption and thus the argument is fallacious. Also, other assumptions could be violated here. To further use my analogy, another assumption the liberal has underpinning his arguments is that a state exists to provide education. If you're in debt to the point where your government bonds are considered crap by the market, your decision to spend more money on education could threaten the existence of your state. Therefore, once again, you're making an argument and not rigorously considering whether assumptions are/will remain true or not. Of course, you could change the "axioms" of the universe of discourse and just enshrine "spending on education is good regardless of whether it actually improves education or not," as a true, and at that point, you're right that I can no longer argue with you. However, I almost always hear an argument with a "because": "the right for free speech for the press is good because it ensures they report fairly and honestly and make their fellow citizens," or, "health-care as a right is good because the government providing healthcare to citizens increases the quality of their care and wellness." Whenever someone says this, there is something in there that is testable and they'd better be willing to demonstrate it, especially if my tax dollars are going to fund their ventures.

noobermin 11y ago

The basic argument I have against this is that people say things that make assumptions they don't realize and those assumptions can be testable. Let me give an example. Say you have a liberal who says, "regardless of whether we go into debt or not," since that is an objectively measurable observable, "we should spend more on education because education is something I value." That already has a problem: it assumes spending more on education increases the quality of education; therein lies a testable hypothesis that we can demonstrate true or false. If a liberal is offended by that notion, that is what I'm arguing against--for me, ideas just aren't "so obvious" that they can't be demonstrated, if it's true, there better be evidence for its truth. If, for example, we spend more on education than other nations and we still have subpar outcomes (which is true, actually), then the stated reasoning "go into debt because we value education anyway" contains a false assumption and thus the argument is fallacious. Also, other assumptions could be violated here. To further use my analogy, another assumption the liberal has underpinning his arguments is that a state exists to provide education. If you're in debt to the point where your government bonds are considered crap by the market, your decision to spend more money on education could threaten the existence of your state. Therefore, once again, you're making an argument and not rigorously considering whether assumptions are/will remain true or not. Of course, you could change the "axioms" of the universe of discourse and just enshrine "spending on education is good regardless of whether it actually improves education or not," as a true, and at that point, you're right that I can no longer argue with you. However, I almost always hear an argument with a "because": "the right for free speech for the press is good because it ensures they report fairly and honestly and make their fellow citizens," or, "health-care as a right is good because the government providing healthcare to citizens increases the quality of their care and wellness." Whenever someone says this, there is something in there that is testable and they'd better be willing to demonstrate it, especially if my tax dollars are going to fund their ventures.