5 ms·

It's also like saying - I can't believe they're not letting us operate an Atlantic Slave Trade - because of some supreme court cases from decades ago. Why shou

It's also like saying - I can't believe they're not letting us operate an Atlantic Slave Trade - because of some supreme court cases from decades ago. Why should the decades matter? Supreme court cases matter...

cscurmudgeon 5y ago
Or the US constitution, centuries old.
ternaryoperator 5y ago
That's a very poor analogy. It's inflammatory and disrespectful to put a trivial disagreement over investment classification on the same footing as the slave trade, and it's not factual either. Slave trade was not abolished by the Supreme Court, but by an act of Congress [0] and later by presidential decree [1]. [0] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolishes-the-african-slave-trade https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolish... [1] Emancipation Proclamation
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Nit: the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states rebelling against the union. Slavery was perfectly legal in Kentucky until December 18, 1865.
  - ternaryoperator 5y ago
    That is just a nit, as you say. The point is that the Supreme Court had nothing to do with ending the slave trade.
    - Gibbon1 5y ago
      During and after civil war the Supreme Court was problematic and the Republicans solved the problem in part by packing it.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument.
  - itogglebits 5y ago
    That's not reduction ad absurdum. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
    - edanm 5y ago
      That's exactly reductio ad absurdum. Quoting your own link: > [a] form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. The claim parent is attempting to establish is "how old a law is doesn't matter". The extreme example is ignoring an old law that abolishes the slave trade, and claims it is unimportant because it is decades old, which (parent is claiming) is absurd. Therefore, the original claim is absurd.
- vmception 5y ago
  Nobody cares because we understood the point.

cscurmudgeon 5y ago

Or the US constitution, centuries old.

ternaryoperator 5y ago

That's a very poor analogy. It's inflammatory and disrespectful to put a trivial disagreement over investment classification on the same footing as the slave trade, and it's not factual either. Slave trade was not abolished by the Supreme Court, but by an act of Congress [0] and later by presidential decree [1]. [0] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolishes-the-african-slave-trade https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolish... [1] Emancipation Proclamation

dehrmann 5y ago
Nit: the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states rebelling against the union. Slavery was perfectly legal in Kentucky until December 18, 1865.
- ternaryoperator 5y ago
  That is just a nit, as you say. The point is that the Supreme Court had nothing to do with ending the slave trade.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    During and after civil war the Supreme Court was problematic and the Republicans solved the problem in part by packing it.
dehrmann 5y ago
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument.
- itogglebits 5y ago
  That's not reduction ad absurdum. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - edanm 5y ago
    That's exactly reductio ad absurdum. Quoting your own link: > [a] form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. The claim parent is attempting to establish is "how old a law is doesn't matter". The extreme example is ignoring an old law that abolishes the slave trade, and claims it is unimportant because it is decades old, which (parent is claiming) is absurd. Therefore, the original claim is absurd.
vmception 5y ago
Nobody cares because we understood the point.