3 ms·
They would at worse be arguing in bad faith. But their argument is right or wrong because of its bases and assumptions, not based on who's saying the words
by _aavaa_ 4y ago
They would at worse be arguing in bad faith. But their argument is right or wrong because of its bases and assumptions, not based on who's saying the words
- nh23423fefe 4y agoSure, you can pretend to have a uniform prior.
- smoldesu 4y agoTheir argument is based on opinions of morality and soft-truths, but they're casting it like an objective problem (which it is not). The author even feels the need to admit as much at the end, simply acknowledging that the cycle of sexualization will always continue, regardless of our opinion on it. So, with that being said, I'd say it absolutely compromises their argument here. If the author is gullible enough to fall for garden-variety conspiracy theories, why should I trust their authority on morality? Their rhetorical triangle is broken. They have no credibility, they make no appeals to logic (and contradict themselves) which leaves them only with pathos - the ability to outrage and incense their audience based on emotional appeals.