3 ms·
It's because it's not an argument about the thing itself, it's an argument about a speculative thing that might happen. You can rebut it by just saying "but tha
by kemayo 6y ago
It's because it's not an argument about the thing itself, it's an argument about a speculative thing that might happen. You can rebut it by just saying "but that won't happen". So using it in an argument kinda inherently gets you into an unprovable realm.
- mikepurvis 6y agoIn various avenues where it commonly appears (guns, gay marriage, speech, privacy, etc) it's particularly unhelpful because the US typically lags other western nations on this stuff. So an opposition that relies on "what if" scenarios to oppose progressive change is often one which is either unaware-of or has explicitly looked at other nations that are 10-50 years ahead on whatever the policy is, and discovered that enacting step X did not, in fact, lead to a downward spiral into nightmare scenario Y.