3 ms·

It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have th

by javert 6y ago

It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gruez 6y ago
>Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion. The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Also, regarding your other comment > You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.
- javert 6y ago
  > A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights. That was pertinent in that part of the discussion. I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this is a discussion about political theory, and already was, before I joined it. On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your perspective. I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in bad faith. I will not respond further. > It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees. I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.

by javert 6y ago

It is a generic "what's the role of government" discussion. It already was, even before I commented. Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gruez 6y ago

>Not sure why you got involved if you don't want to have that discussion. The main issue is that it looks like you're attempting to do a motte and bailey. You start off by making a bold claim (the bailey) of "Banning TikTok violates the rights of Americans" (which is commonly understood by most people to mean it violates the constitution/legal rights of Americans). A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey Also, regarding your other comment > You added more to your post after I responded, so here is my new response to the new content. It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees.

javert 6y ago
> A few comments later, you retreat back to the motte by saying that what you meant by "violates the rights of Americans" is "harms Americans". No, I didn't equivocate between "harms Americans" and "violates rights." The former is an explanation for why we need a theoretical framework of rights. That was pertinent in that part of the discussion. I get that you think that everyone understands "rights" to mean "rights in a narrow legal sense," but as I said before, I don't agree. In fact, I think most people understand "rights" in my sense. Anyway, I needed to say what I said, the way I said it, to make my point. Yes, this is a discussion about political theory, and already was, before I joined it. On your premise about the word "rights," which I disagree with, I would have acted in bad faith, so you are right to raise that as a complaint, from your perspective. I don't think this is a productive conversation anymore, so I am asking you kindly to refrain from responding further, on the presumption that you continue to believe that I have acted at least irrationally, and possibly in bad faith. I will not respond further. > It probably makes more sense to edit your existing comment and delete that one rather than starting two comment trees. I agree, but I couldn't find the link to edit that particular comment, for some reason, so I had to make a new comment. I know how to use HN (been on here for a super long time), but I probably goofed somehow.