4 ms·

You should try harder to give people the benefit of the doubt - you can't expect people to list every single possible caveat for every opinion they express. The

You should try harder to give people the benefit of the doubt - you can't expect people to list every single possible caveat for every opinion they express. The article, and the parent post, both do not equate such a contrived minor injury to destroying an entire business, and you absolutely know this.

naasking 6y ago
> You should try harder to give people the benefit of the doubt - you can't expect people to list every single possible caveat for every opinion they express. The position, as stated, is literally false which my argument by absurdity demonstrates. So what I expect, is that people attempt to make true statements, and where the truth value is contextual, then their phrasing also ought to reflect that nuance, ie. damaging a person is typically morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is typically worse than physically damaging an object. There are no qualifiers in the original claim to reflect this nuance, and like it or not, people absolutely do believe unqalified claims until they are challenged on it. Why do you think slogans and propaganda are so effective.
- mdszy 6y ago
  So are you saying you're so quick to argue against points you might agree with because of this fallacy you're proposing? Or do you only use it to discredit anyone you disagree with by providing an absurd counterexample that actively insults the intelligence of the person you're talking to?
  - naasking 6y ago
    I agree it's an "absurd counterexample". That's the whole point of a reductio ad absurdum. It shows the fallacy at the core of the argument with which you whole heartedly agreed. Precision is important in ethics. Furthermore, even if I were to be maximally charitable in interpreting the argument as "damaging a person is typically morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is typically worse than physically damaging an object", not everyone would even agree with that, contra your post. I don't think you appreciate how broad ethics is as a topic; virtue ethics and deontological ethics both dispute the premises from which this argument is constructed. Finally, discrediting an argument you agreed with does not somehow discredit or insult you as a person, so not sure where you got that from.
    - mdszy 6y ago
      Assuming that I'm so stupid as to honestly believe that a papercut is equivalent to burning down a store is absolutely an insult to intelligence. You'll find that people are more likely to engage with you when you don't treat them like an absolute idiot.
      - naasking 6y ago
        You quoted an ethical principle, then said it was obviously true. Now you're claiming that you don't actually believe in the ethical principle that you claimed was so obviously true? If you're now claiming that the principle was "true" in some vague unspecified way, but not literally true, then like I said, say what you mean and mean what you say, and don't get bent out of shape when people point out the problems with this sort of imprecise reasoning.
        mdszy 6y ago
        It brings my heart such great joy to know that there are people out there like you who are willing to argue about trivialities that don't actually matter. Not everything is a deep philosophical discussion that needs to get down to absolute true statements. Sometimes it's just someone, like me, who is sick of black people being literally murdered by police and thinks it's absurd that white assholes get more worked up over some property than over black lives. I literally don't give a single shit about absolute ethical principles. I give a shit about black lives. Black lives matter, shut the hell up already.
        Ghjklov 6y ago
        Black lives matter? According to black on black crime statistics and black abortion rates, they don't, not even black people themselves. Willing to take the L for saying the truth on this one. It's politically convenient for the left to use the death of a black man (f the police) to rally up support against their opposition as the election comes up, but without that, they will happily ignore the amount of black on black killings that happens in THEIR OWN cities the rest of the year. And then they'll happily support abortion, which is an incredible suppressor of the American black population, making sure they will never grow in numbers enough to make a political difference in this forsaken country on their own and not used as pawns by either political party. I'm sure one day you will be able to convince me that black lives matter and we will finally do something about it to make meaningful change. But it looks like today is not that day. Judging by how the protests and riots have settled down already in less than 2 weeks, they are finished making use of black lives to further their political goals. Just like the time before, and the time before that. When does it end?

naasking 6y ago

> You should try harder to give people the benefit of the doubt - you can't expect people to list every single possible caveat for every opinion they express. The position, as stated, is literally false which my argument by absurdity demonstrates. So what I expect, is that people attempt to make true statements, and where the truth value is contextual, then their phrasing also ought to reflect that nuance, ie. damaging a person is typically morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is typically worse than physically damaging an object. There are no qualifiers in the original claim to reflect this nuance, and like it or not, people absolutely do believe unqalified claims until they are challenged on it. Why do you think slogans and propaganda are so effective.

mdszy 6y ago
So are you saying you're so quick to argue against points you might agree with because of this fallacy you're proposing? Or do you only use it to discredit anyone you disagree with by providing an absurd counterexample that actively insults the intelligence of the person you're talking to?
- naasking 6y ago
  I agree it's an "absurd counterexample". That's the whole point of a reductio ad absurdum. It shows the fallacy at the core of the argument with which you whole heartedly agreed. Precision is important in ethics. Furthermore, even if I were to be maximally charitable in interpreting the argument as "damaging a person is typically morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is typically worse than physically damaging an object", not everyone would even agree with that, contra your post. I don't think you appreciate how broad ethics is as a topic; virtue ethics and deontological ethics both dispute the premises from which this argument is constructed. Finally, discrediting an argument you agreed with does not somehow discredit or insult you as a person, so not sure where you got that from.
  - mdszy 6y ago
    Assuming that I'm so stupid as to honestly believe that a papercut is equivalent to burning down a store is absolutely an insult to intelligence. You'll find that people are more likely to engage with you when you don't treat them like an absolute idiot.
    - naasking 6y ago
      You quoted an ethical principle, then said it was obviously true. Now you're claiming that you don't actually believe in the ethical principle that you claimed was so obviously true? If you're now claiming that the principle was "true" in some vague unspecified way, but not literally true, then like I said, say what you mean and mean what you say, and don't get bent out of shape when people point out the problems with this sort of imprecise reasoning.
      - mdszy 6y ago
        It brings my heart such great joy to know that there are people out there like you who are willing to argue about trivialities that don't actually matter. Not everything is a deep philosophical discussion that needs to get down to absolute true statements. Sometimes it's just someone, like me, who is sick of black people being literally murdered by police and thinks it's absurd that white assholes get more worked up over some property than over black lives. I literally don't give a single shit about absolute ethical principles. I give a shit about black lives. Black lives matter, shut the hell up already.
        Ghjklov 6y ago
        Black lives matter? According to black on black crime statistics and black abortion rates, they don't, not even black people themselves. Willing to take the L for saying the truth on this one. It's politically convenient for the left to use the death of a black man (f the police) to rally up support against their opposition as the election comes up, but without that, they will happily ignore the amount of black on black killings that happens in THEIR OWN cities the rest of the year. And then they'll happily support abortion, which is an incredible suppressor of the American black population, making sure they will never grow in numbers enough to make a political difference in this forsaken country on their own and not used as pawns by either political party. I'm sure one day you will be able to convince me that black lives matter and we will finally do something about it to make meaningful change. But it looks like today is not that day. Judging by how the protests and riots have settled down already in less than 2 weeks, they are finished making use of black lives to further their political goals. Just like the time before, and the time before that. When does it end?