5 ms·

> A watch maker killed for the tyranny of time. This isn't so much a strawman as a slippery slope made from them. It is not reasonable to leap from 'people sho

> A watch maker killed for the tyranny of time. This isn't so much a strawman as a slippery slope made from them. It is not reasonable to leap from 'people should acknowledge and discuss the ethics of their actions' to 'blood-drenched tyranny'.

systemvoltage 4y ago
Yes, done on purpose. IMO when discussing morality, we should consistently applying it, a litmus test for whether it holds up or not. I am arguing that your case is fundamentally flawed, irrational, corrupt, inconsistent and dangerous. Edit: I can't respond to your slippery slope fallacy but you started with an extremely broad stance "Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability." I am responding in kind with an extremely broad implications. I guess we're busy debating which fallacy falls in whose arm with not addressing what I countered your argument with. First came the victimization, then a strawman card, then a slippery slope fallacy card. But you never considered responding to what happens when we take your ideas and consistently apply them. I still don't understand why you feel like you're being accused. I am arguing about the points you raised. No one is accussing you of anything.
- Planktonne 4y ago
  A slippery slope [1] - particularly based on a wild misstatement of my position - is not a strong argument. If you want to argue against my case, then please do that, starting by engaging with the position I'm actually advancing [2]. It's difficult to discuss morality at all when you're deliberately engaging in violent rhetoric rather than with me. [1] https://fallacyinlogic.com/slippery-slope-fallacy-definition-and-examples/ https://fallacyinlogic.com/slippery-slope-fallacy-definition... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

systemvoltage 4y ago

Yes, done on purpose. IMO when discussing morality, we should consistently applying it, a litmus test for whether it holds up or not. I am arguing that your case is fundamentally flawed, irrational, corrupt, inconsistent and dangerous. Edit: I can't respond to your slippery slope fallacy but you started with an extremely broad stance "Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability." I am responding in kind with an extremely broad implications. I guess we're busy debating which fallacy falls in whose arm with not addressing what I countered your argument with. First came the victimization, then a strawman card, then a slippery slope fallacy card. But you never considered responding to what happens when we take your ideas and consistently apply them. I still don't understand why you feel like you're being accused. I am arguing about the points you raised. No one is accussing you of anything.

Planktonne 4y ago
A slippery slope [1] - particularly based on a wild misstatement of my position - is not a strong argument. If you want to argue against my case, then please do that, starting by engaging with the position I'm actually advancing [2]. It's difficult to discuss morality at all when you're deliberately engaging in violent rhetoric rather than with me. [1] https://fallacyinlogic.com/slippery-slope-fallacy-definition-and-examples/ https://fallacyinlogic.com/slippery-slope-fallacy-definition... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html