3 ms·
>It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is somethin
by throwaway0xc 5y ago
>It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion.
It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed.
>I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair.
Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before every table meal. The "default" state is fair.
The fact of the matter is multiple different "default status quos" exists.
>The gag policy in my analogy is not limited to any one side.
Except the straw man because internal company dealings are not gagged.
>According to your reasoning, that de facto makes it neutral.
Yes, external politics not related to work are gagged, which de facto makes it neutral.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoOkay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0xe 5y ago>A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Again, it's not specific topics, you're straw maning here. The societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor is because when they have a table meal, they kill babies. In this case the "status quo" is the morally correct approach. But still, it's not specific to company politics. >Neutral? Yes.