3 ms·

> The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or

> The reason people tend to pay less attention to arguments by hypocrites is that arguments are often about tradeoffs that cannot be scientifically computed or discovered purely through rational debate, Wow, you've just chosen to discard rationality right at the beginning? I guess that's one way to go about it but I sure don't feel like I need to say much to prove that assuming hypocrites are wrong is irrational. > actions speak louder than words. This is a great rule of thumb when applied to judging a person's character, but completely irrelevant to evaluating the correctness of an argument. > If someone is arguing for tradeoff A, and relying on moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments for it, whilst simultaneously their actions suggest they actually prefer tradeoff B, then that suggests their proposed weighting of the tradeoffs is actually wrong and thus that their words are not worth very much. Sure, moral/emotional/somewhat vague arguments are poor arguments. Actions still have nothing to do with it. > In this case, the Guardian loves to argue that tax avoidance is wrong, using arguments that are vague and emotional at their core (e.g. fairness), So attack their arguments. If their arguments are invalid they can be proven invalid without attacking The Guardian. The Guardian's hypocrisy remains irrelevant to this conversation. > Given that actions speak louder than words, that suggests that their proposed tradeoff is perhaps not the right one. No, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity--which is isn't: as another poster pointed out, the writing staff are not the same people as the finance department--but even if we could consider the Guardian to be a single entity that was condemning behaviors while engaging in them, that would only prove that The Guardian is kind of an asshole. It doesn't prove that they're wrong.

sievebrain 10y ago
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.
- devishard 10y ago
  > 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.

sievebrain 10y ago

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.

devishard 10y ago
> 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.