3 ms·

You are making an argument here, that the other person didn't make an argument; that means you were applying logic. Your logic is that there's nothing stopping

You are making an argument here, that the other person didn't make an argument; that means you were applying logic. Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). You can extend that logic to say that you "can" abuse humans. But your logic totally misses societal context. When someone says "can", they aren't talking about pure physical capability. That's why no one in their right mind will say "I can stab you".

ipaddr 5y ago
Social norms can be accepting of such activities if you surround yourself with a like minded group. Living within whatever social norms exist is common but progressives and activists try to break the social norm. Taboos are real and get broken everyday.. cousins date, 70 year old women and getting together with 20 year olds, there are mothers who hate their kids. Each social rule broken can have punishments.. wearing white after labor day can get you not invited to a social event. But that doesn't mean you should imprison yourself trying to live within other people's rules. Drawing a funny face on an ad has a low punishment rate, low chance of being cast out of society vs stabbing someone randomly. You can reject some rules and follow others. It has always been your choice.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  Thanks for stating the obvious.
DarylZero 5y ago
Sorry to say, you have failed to comprehend the thread. > Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). Who said anything about "societal norms"? You are just inventing things. You invent an appeal to social norms, then you invent a reply to it. In fact, all I did was point out how no justification was even given for a claim. I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  > Who said anything about "societal norms"? The parent comment, by context, was inferring from societal norms. You yourself now say you pointed out how there is "no justification was even given for a claim." That means you are ignoring the parent comments context, which is societal norms. The justification is implied to be societally defined normal behavior. You can ask anyone why they shouldn't steal - it would be related to societal norms / morals. But then your answer, by analogy, would be to discard those arguments. > I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument. The assertion that it was a non-argument is based on the rejection of its context.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    You're just inventing all this. A whole back and forth argument in your head where you invented both sides.

ipaddr 5y ago

Social norms can be accepting of such activities if you surround yourself with a like minded group. Living within whatever social norms exist is common but progressives and activists try to break the social norm. Taboos are real and get broken everyday.. cousins date, 70 year old women and getting together with 20 year olds, there are mothers who hate their kids. Each social rule broken can have punishments.. wearing white after labor day can get you not invited to a social event. But that doesn't mean you should imprison yourself trying to live within other people's rules. Drawing a funny face on an ad has a low punishment rate, low chance of being cast out of society vs stabbing someone randomly. You can reject some rules and follow others. It has always been your choice.

shukantpal 5y ago
Thanks for stating the obvious.

DarylZero 5y ago

Sorry to say, you have failed to comprehend the thread. > Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). Who said anything about "societal norms"? You are just inventing things. You invent an appeal to social norms, then you invent a reply to it. In fact, all I did was point out how no justification was even given for a claim. I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument.

shukantpal 5y ago
> Who said anything about "societal norms"? The parent comment, by context, was inferring from societal norms. You yourself now say you pointed out how there is "no justification was even given for a claim." That means you are ignoring the parent comments context, which is societal norms. The justification is implied to be societally defined normal behavior. You can ask anyone why they shouldn't steal - it would be related to societal norms / morals. But then your answer, by analogy, would be to discard those arguments. > I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument. The assertion that it was a non-argument is based on the rejection of its context.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  You're just inventing all this. A whole back and forth argument in your head where you invented both sides.