3 ms·

“ but what about” - a quote from your reply: does that ring a bell to you about why your argument seems specious at best or misleading at worst?

benatkin 6y ago
I think this could be an instance of the fallacy fallacy. Just because what about arguments are often unwarranted doesn't mean they are in every case. In particular, the health care and pharma industries are driving up the cost of doing business, so it's fair to ask why there's a scandal when a startup accidentally misleads and overcharges, while it's business as usual for Big Medicine? https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/ https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/
- totalZero 6y ago
  While cute, this is false. "Argument from fallacy" is the fallacy whereby you assert that the conclusion is false because the reasoning is false. GP doesn't assert that the conclusion is necessarily false, and in fact very specifically qualifies his language to the reasoning. Webster's gives "fallacious" as a synonym for "specious."
fastball 6y ago
I'm pretty tired of everyone yelling "Whataboutism!" all the time. Just because it's a tactic used by shills doesn't mean whenever the point is made it's shilling / irrelevant. Sometimes it's actually worthwhile to point out when an instance of behavior is actually part of a much larger, much bigger problem.
- totalZero 6y ago
  The poop-testing startup was outright defrauding its customers and their insurance companies. This is qualitatively and legally different from price gouging/discrimination/inflation for bona fide medical services. The argument is akin to saying "what about the Sackler family" in response to a criticism of Theranos, as though that somehow vindicates Theranos. At best, you're suggesting the "everyone's doing it" defense applies in this case. If a cop won't let you out of a speeding ticket because others, too, were speeding, then why should we let the poop-testing startup off the hook because other crimes have also been committed in the same broken system?
  - fastball 6y ago
    Nobody is suggesting the poop startup is not at fault.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      Nobody is suggesting that anyone is suggesting that the poop startup is not at fault. Rather, the original suggestion was an interpretation about the relative black-heartedness of bad behavior in the healthcare industry: > I don’t think the alleged crimes committed by them or Theranos are nearly as bad as the ones committed by big pharma and uspto and the rest of the healthcare industry This pivot is why, I presume, there was an initial response that touched on whataboutism.

benatkin 6y ago

I think this could be an instance of the fallacy fallacy. Just because what about arguments are often unwarranted doesn't mean they are in every case. In particular, the health care and pharma industries are driving up the cost of doing business, so it's fair to ask why there's a scandal when a startup accidentally misleads and overcharges, while it's business as usual for Big Medicine? https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/ https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/

totalZero 6y ago
While cute, this is false. "Argument from fallacy" is the fallacy whereby you assert that the conclusion is false because the reasoning is false. GP doesn't assert that the conclusion is necessarily false, and in fact very specifically qualifies his language to the reasoning. Webster's gives "fallacious" as a synonym for "specious."

fastball 6y ago

I'm pretty tired of everyone yelling "Whataboutism!" all the time. Just because it's a tactic used by shills doesn't mean whenever the point is made it's shilling / irrelevant. Sometimes it's actually worthwhile to point out when an instance of behavior is actually part of a much larger, much bigger problem.

totalZero 6y ago
The poop-testing startup was outright defrauding its customers and their insurance companies. This is qualitatively and legally different from price gouging/discrimination/inflation for bona fide medical services. The argument is akin to saying "what about the Sackler family" in response to a criticism of Theranos, as though that somehow vindicates Theranos. At best, you're suggesting the "everyone's doing it" defense applies in this case. If a cop won't let you out of a speeding ticket because others, too, were speeding, then why should we let the poop-testing startup off the hook because other crimes have also been committed in the same broken system?
- fastball 6y ago
  Nobody is suggesting the poop startup is not at fault.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    Nobody is suggesting that anyone is suggesting that the poop startup is not at fault. Rather, the original suggestion was an interpretation about the relative black-heartedness of bad behavior in the healthcare industry: > I don’t think the alleged crimes committed by them or Theranos are nearly as bad as the ones committed by big pharma and uspto and the rest of the healthcare industry This pivot is why, I presume, there was an initial response that touched on whataboutism.