3 ms·
The subtle difference between the original statement and yours: Ideas that drive governing decisions should be globally good - meaning there should be more tha
by parentheses 3y ago
The subtle difference between the original statement and yours:
Ideas that drive governing decisions should be globally good - meaning there should be more than just @sama espousing them.
- r_hoods_ghost 3y agoYou're defending an argument that is blatantly self contradictory within the space of two sentences. A) "anything he suggests should be categorically rejected because he’s just not in a position to be trusted." B) "If what he suggests are good ideas then hopefully we can arrive at them in some other way with a clean chain of custody." These sentences directly follow each other and directly contradict each other. Logically you can't categorically (the categorical is important here. Categorical means something like "treat as a universal law") reject a conclusion because it is espoused by someone you dislike, while at the same time saying you will accept that conclusion if arrived at by some other route. "I will reject P if X proposes P, but will accept P if Y proposes P." is just poor reasoning.
- brookst 3y agoMore clearly said than I managed, yep. But I suppose it comes down to priorities. If good policy is less important than contradicting P, I suppose that approach makes sense.