3 ms·

All you've done here is reiterate what he said and insult him for thinking it. That's not even remotely persuasive.

quadrangle 5y ago
The person above wasn't making a reasoned persuasive argument, they were making a moral assertion. The purpose wasn't to insult someone nor to convince them. It was just an expression of moral outrage.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  That's precisely what I pointed out.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    cool
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    Yes, but your comment reads as if you were giving feedback. Implication is that the intent was or should be persuasion, and you saying it's failing at that. Anyway, I don't think "I condemn you for X" is an insult of the normal sort where it's ad hominem, even though it would be better and less ad hominem as "I condemn the idea" (as opposed to the person).
    - andybak 5y ago
      Thank you. This is exactly correct. I was fully aware that I wasn't making a persuasive argument and it wasn't intended to be one. I wanted to emphasise and reiterate what I believe is a widely held moral norm. The commenter I replied to seemed to unaware how far they had strayed beyond reasonable ethical statements. I don't think I could persuade them to change their position but I couldn't let that go unchallenged. Norms change one person at a time and speaking out is important.
geofft 5y ago
What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Why isn't morality axiomatic? Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying that a private citizen who catches a thief stealing their catalytic convertor can torture them slowly and painfully for weeks without actually killing them. You owe them no moral consideration, it's a deterrent, etc. Do you need someone to make a persuasive argument against the merits of that to realize that it's abhorrent?
- Eelongate 5y ago
  > What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Morality is subjective. Here you are asserting that your personal morality is the "basic morality", without much in the way of supporting argument. > Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying [something that wasn't said] Strawmanning is not a persuasive line of argument either. I'll demonstrate this by doing it back to you (this will be unpersuasive, demonstrating my point): "If 'basic morality' dictates that you owe every person a moral consideration even if they are in the process of victimizing you, then by your logic it shouldn't be permitted to shoot somebody who's raping you" I sincerely doubt I've persuaded you with that strawman, and nor have you persuaded me with yours.
- tonyarkles 5y ago
  If morality were axiomatic, then worldwide we would have a collective shared understanding of what is right or wrong, immutable over time. That’s clearly not the case.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    maybe not in every detail, but are the broad strokes really so varried?
    - naniwaduni 5y ago
      Yes.
    - deleted 5y ago

The person above wasn't making a reasoned persuasive argument, they were making a moral assertion. The purpose wasn't to insult someone nor to convince them. It was just an expression of moral outrage.

Eelongate 5y ago
That's precisely what I pointed out.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  cool
- quadrangle 5y ago
  Yes, but your comment reads as if you were giving feedback. Implication is that the intent was or should be persuasion, and you saying it's failing at that. Anyway, I don't think "I condemn you for X" is an insult of the normal sort where it's ad hominem, even though it would be better and less ad hominem as "I condemn the idea" (as opposed to the person).
  - andybak 5y ago
    Thank you. This is exactly correct. I was fully aware that I wasn't making a persuasive argument and it wasn't intended to be one. I wanted to emphasise and reiterate what I believe is a widely held moral norm. The commenter I replied to seemed to unaware how far they had strayed beyond reasonable ethical statements. I don't think I could persuade them to change their position but I couldn't let that go unchallenged. Norms change one person at a time and speaking out is important.

geofft 5y ago

What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Why isn't morality axiomatic? Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying that a private citizen who catches a thief stealing their catalytic convertor can torture them slowly and painfully for weeks without actually killing them. You owe them no moral consideration, it's a deterrent, etc. Do you need someone to make a persuasive argument against the merits of that to realize that it's abhorrent?

Eelongate 5y ago
> What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Morality is subjective. Here you are asserting that your personal morality is the "basic morality", without much in the way of supporting argument. > Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying [something that wasn't said] Strawmanning is not a persuasive line of argument either. I'll demonstrate this by doing it back to you (this will be unpersuasive, demonstrating my point): "If 'basic morality' dictates that you owe every person a moral consideration even if they are in the process of victimizing you, then by your logic it shouldn't be permitted to shoot somebody who's raping you" I sincerely doubt I've persuaded you with that strawman, and nor have you persuaded me with yours.
tonyarkles 5y ago
If morality were axiomatic, then worldwide we would have a collective shared understanding of what is right or wrong, immutable over time. That’s clearly not the case.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  maybe not in every detail, but are the broad strokes really so varried?
  - naniwaduni 5y ago
    Yes.
  - deleted 5y ago