4 ms·

You really enjoy race baiting don't you?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm making an argument by contradiction. Premise 1: X causes social tension is a reason for us to oppose X. Fact: Racial diversity causes social tension. Premise 2: The person I'm arguing against doesn't believe racial diversity should be opposed. Conclusion: Maybe Premise 1 is wrong. But then using premise 1 as an argument against inequality is also wrong.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy Although I'd prefer to call it "argumentum ad assume racism"
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    No. Association fallacy is a in b, a in c therefore b = c. My argument is a -> b, a -> c, c is false therefore a must be false, and the argument for b is also flawed.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  You seem to be assuming that social tension has only one cause, so if racial division causes social tension, then income inequality doesn't. You also seem to be assuming it is not possible that income inequality might be one important cause of racial division.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I'm assuming nothing of the sort. According to Robert Putnam, all else held equal, racial diversity causes social tension. If causing social tension is a valid argument against something, this should be an argument against racial diversity. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.... (sadly it's paywalled) So we are faced with the following choices: a) you can oppose racial diversity AND inequality because both cause social tension, b) you can oppose neither (for this reason, at least), or c) you can be logically inconsistent and therefore incorrect about something. I choose (b). What do you choose?
existencebox 10y ago
Rather than just react to the parent, as I nearly did ("clearly that's a troll") give the statement some thought, in this context I think there's some merit to considering the opinion. The grandparent stated the rather direct correlation: Causes social unrest? Bad. Fajitas made the (I believe accurate, if incendiary) statement of "Is this really true?" I find it especially entertaining that HN would react negatively to this angle of query, given that we embrace the potential conflict when it comes to many aspects speech and other liberties as an _asset_ to those capabilities (many statements of the sort: "someone's civil discord is someone else's civil rights movement") While I can't use this argument to state the opposite, "discord -> good thing", I certainly think there's something to be said that of many of the arguments in this thread, the fact that it causes social unrest is one of the _weaker_ justifications for income rectification in my eyes. (I feel somewhat "copping out" in that I have qualify myself like this, but to be perfectly clear; I absolutely support inspecting this problem and really believe in the concerns regarding cyclical wealth/power building. As such, a weak argument does more harm than good since someone can easily point out contradictions like the ones in my post) As a final postscript, let me take this mental exercise to one extreme, in the attempt to provoke further thought: perhaps unrest is the saving grace of very unequal situations, the final avenue to take when all peaceful ones have been exhausted, and in that sense both a "emergency-pressure-release-valve" on society and a barometer that should be watched with attention.

I'm making an argument by contradiction. Premise 1: X causes social tension is a reason for us to oppose X. Fact: Racial diversity causes social tension. Premise 2: The person I'm arguing against doesn't believe racial diversity should be opposed. Conclusion: Maybe Premise 1 is wrong. But then using premise 1 as an argument against inequality is also wrong.

crdoconnor 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy Although I'd prefer to call it "argumentum ad assume racism"
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  No. Association fallacy is a in b, a in c therefore b = c. My argument is a -> b, a -> c, c is false therefore a must be false, and the argument for b is also flawed.
woodandsteel 10y ago
You seem to be assuming that social tension has only one cause, so if racial division causes social tension, then income inequality doesn't. You also seem to be assuming it is not possible that income inequality might be one important cause of racial division.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm assuming nothing of the sort. According to Robert Putnam, all else held equal, racial diversity causes social tension. If causing social tension is a valid argument against something, this should be an argument against racial diversity. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.... (sadly it's paywalled) So we are faced with the following choices: a) you can oppose racial diversity AND inequality because both cause social tension, b) you can oppose neither (for this reason, at least), or c) you can be logically inconsistent and therefore incorrect about something. I choose (b). What do you choose?

existencebox 10y ago

Rather than just react to the parent, as I nearly did ("clearly that's a troll") give the statement some thought, in this context I think there's some merit to considering the opinion. The grandparent stated the rather direct correlation: Causes social unrest? Bad. Fajitas made the (I believe accurate, if incendiary) statement of "Is this really true?" I find it especially entertaining that HN would react negatively to this angle of query, given that we embrace the potential conflict when it comes to many aspects speech and other liberties as an _asset_ to those capabilities (many statements of the sort: "someone's civil discord is someone else's civil rights movement") While I can't use this argument to state the opposite, "discord -> good thing", I certainly think there's something to be said that of many of the arguments in this thread, the fact that it causes social unrest is one of the _weaker_ justifications for income rectification in my eyes. (I feel somewhat "copping out" in that I have qualify myself like this, but to be perfectly clear; I absolutely support inspecting this problem and really believe in the concerns regarding cyclical wealth/power building. As such, a weak argument does more harm than good since someone can easily point out contradictions like the ones in my post) As a final postscript, let me take this mental exercise to one extreme, in the attempt to provoke further thought: perhaps unrest is the saving grace of very unequal situations, the final avenue to take when all peaceful ones have been exhausted, and in that sense both a "emergency-pressure-release-valve" on society and a barometer that should be watched with attention.