4 ms·
> Slavery in 1800s > glitchc: there’s no law broken here. So, how should I feel about this?
by dannyr 8y ago
> Slavery in 1800s
> glitchc: there’s no law broken here. So, how should I feel about this?
- forgotmyhnacc 8y agoYou're comparing owning a person to people voluntarily downloading apps ?
- dannyr 8y agoWhat I'm implying is the original commenter's reasoning is faulty. But you can interpret it whatever you wish.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- glitchc 8y agoActually it's your reasoning that's faulty. All crimes are not equal. That's why society deems it appropriate to outfit different crimes with different punishments. Let's not forget that until mid-20th century, adultery was illegal in most states...
- gpm 8y agoHe's making a reduction to the absurd to show why the reasoning he is replying to doesn't work. It's a good form of argument, quite similar to a proof by contradiction.
- ardy42 8y ago> You're comparing owning a person to people voluntarily downloading apps ? He's pointing out that morally repugnant things can be legally compliant.
- djohnston 8y agoWhat an awful false equivalence.
- dannyr 8y agoWell, the original commenter's reasoning is awful. But yeah, cue your outrage then.
- glitchc 8y agoMurder’s not okay, yet almost everyone breaks the speed limit at one point or another. Moral equivalence, or lack thereof, flows both ways.