5 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoYou're just inventing all this. A whole back and forth argument in your head where you invented both sides.