3 ms·

This reasoning by analogy is at the heart of the error being made in the brain uploading debate. Of course a man can become a woman. A box of chips and plasti

This reasoning by analogy is at the heart of the error being made in the brain uploading debate. Of course a man can become a woman. A box of chips and plastic cannot become a human. That you think the two are equivalent because I am stating what the follow on consequences of that decision to accept the premise of chips and plastic being considered human is the absurdity I am trying to point out to you, but you don't get it. I am not arguing about the trans issue I am arguing about the mind uploading issue but you are conflating the two in your brain because you are reasoning by analogy. I could have replaced uploaded person in the above with "my purely imaginary friends" and maybe you would get where I'm trying to go with this? I am trying to think of something more absurd than that, but I am out of ideas. Like my purely imaginary friends should have the right to vote and thus I should get 10000 votes because I have 10000 imaginary friends and if you don't let me, you're an imaginophobe! My purely imaginary friends all have to go to the bathroom and thus the bathroom must remain empty for their privacy during the whole day while all 10,000 go to the bathroom! You would tell me I am out of my mind and that's absurd, and you'd be right. My purely imaginary friends don't exist and have no rights you'd say. I of course would call you an imaginophobe and get you banned from social media. However, you might think that my purely imaginary friends are being discriminated in the same way that trans people are being discriminated against and thus it's a totally valid claim I have because you are reasoning by analogy. Gee, this sounds similar to that other argument I believe, so it must be true! There is a point at which a concept is absurd and just because it analogizes with a previous civil rights battle does not mean that it's valid because the underlying premise is false. Just cause it's like the previous civil rights battle doesn't mean it's the same thing.

bowsamic 4y ago
> you are conflating the two in your brain because you are reasoning by analogy. I'm "conflating the two" because you are explicitly co-opting a huge amount of language from "trans debate" For example, if you do a Nazi salute, people will think you're a Nazi, it doesn't matter if it's really the "pro-natural salute". You are explicitly using all the language of a culture war that is already going on, so why wouldn't I think that it is related to that culture war?
- narrator 4y ago
  It is related to that culture war. We both accept a man can become a woman so all those things are ok for the transexual debate. If we don't accept a box of chips and plastic is a human, or my purely imaginary friends are people then it's not ok to follow that reasoning. That's the point I'm trying to make in its essence. That you are confused by this argument means that you will accept anything as long as it has the right form and presentation. Nazis were anti-smoking. That I am anti-smoking does not mean I'm a Nazi, but you could make that argument with your reasoning because it has a similar form and presentation. The advocate of robots rights will say that opposition to it has a similar form and presentation as the opposition to trans rights in the past. Thus, will you support robot rights, because not doing so is similar in form, like your nazi salute analogy to opposing trans rights? This is the weakness in arguing by analogy.
  - bowsamic 4y ago
    Using the term “transsexual” is even more concerning. Are you anti trans? It’s difficult to read this as anything other than an indirect attack on trans people
    - narrator 4y ago
      You didn't read my previous post. I am not up to date on the latest words, but I'm fine with a person being able to change their gender. I am just blown away by the defectiveness of your reasoning process though. Speaking of which. Using the term “robot” instead of "non-biological person" is even more concerning to me. Are you anti robots? It’s difficult to read this as anything other than an indirect attack on robot persons. I can only assume you are a hateful awful person because you refuse to recognize that robots are people. Denying that robots are people is similar to all the racists who denied that all races are equal. /s <--- That tag means the last paragraph was sarcastic reducto ad absurdium because you are really hard to get a point across to. Besides, you want to figure out what my political beliefs are in another area to decide if you should be pro or anti-robot. This is how the modern world works. Nobody examines the argument, they just want to know what your other beliefs are before they decide to agree. I recently had a discussion about the California propositions with people who I consider highly intelligent. Disappointingly, They did not care to read and discuss the actual propositions, they only wanted to know who was supporting or more importantly, who was AGAINST the propositions and funding the propositions and that's the only thing that mattered. Nobody can come to their own understanding of a matter, they had to rely on authority or analogizing it often very poorly with something else.

bowsamic 4y ago

> you are conflating the two in your brain because you are reasoning by analogy. I'm "conflating the two" because you are explicitly co-opting a huge amount of language from "trans debate" For example, if you do a Nazi salute, people will think you're a Nazi, it doesn't matter if it's really the "pro-natural salute". You are explicitly using all the language of a culture war that is already going on, so why wouldn't I think that it is related to that culture war?

narrator 4y ago
It is related to that culture war. We both accept a man can become a woman so all those things are ok for the transexual debate. If we don't accept a box of chips and plastic is a human, or my purely imaginary friends are people then it's not ok to follow that reasoning. That's the point I'm trying to make in its essence. That you are confused by this argument means that you will accept anything as long as it has the right form and presentation. Nazis were anti-smoking. That I am anti-smoking does not mean I'm a Nazi, but you could make that argument with your reasoning because it has a similar form and presentation. The advocate of robots rights will say that opposition to it has a similar form and presentation as the opposition to trans rights in the past. Thus, will you support robot rights, because not doing so is similar in form, like your nazi salute analogy to opposing trans rights? This is the weakness in arguing by analogy.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  Using the term “transsexual” is even more concerning. Are you anti trans? It’s difficult to read this as anything other than an indirect attack on trans people
  - narrator 4y ago
    You didn't read my previous post. I am not up to date on the latest words, but I'm fine with a person being able to change their gender. I am just blown away by the defectiveness of your reasoning process though. Speaking of which. Using the term “robot” instead of "non-biological person" is even more concerning to me. Are you anti robots? It’s difficult to read this as anything other than an indirect attack on robot persons. I can only assume you are a hateful awful person because you refuse to recognize that robots are people. Denying that robots are people is similar to all the racists who denied that all races are equal. /s <--- That tag means the last paragraph was sarcastic reducto ad absurdium because you are really hard to get a point across to. Besides, you want to figure out what my political beliefs are in another area to decide if you should be pro or anti-robot. This is how the modern world works. Nobody examines the argument, they just want to know what your other beliefs are before they decide to agree. I recently had a discussion about the California propositions with people who I consider highly intelligent. Disappointingly, They did not care to read and discuss the actual propositions, they only wanted to know who was supporting or more importantly, who was AGAINST the propositions and funding the propositions and that's the only thing that mattered. Nobody can come to their own understanding of a matter, they had to rely on authority or analogizing it often very poorly with something else.