3 ms·
What the article seems to be highlighting is _affirming the consequent_ fallacy whereby people deem you as evil when they observe you doing something they deem
by mastermedo 2y ago
What the article seems to be highlighting is _affirming the consequent_ fallacy whereby people deem you as evil when they observe you doing something they deem as wrong. Instead they should actually confirm that you too deem the act as wrong before they label you as evil.
- bilbo0s 2y agoI don't know man? Kind of depends on what you're doing. Going to the extreme cases.. You may be a person from one religion who doesn't feel it is evil to off people en masse if they believe in any religion not your own. I don't really care that you don't think it's evil, I'm still pretty comfy calling you evil. Obviously no one's talking about things like killing people, (I hope?), but I think the example shows what I'm talking about.
- tomjen3 2y agoIt is an extreme case of realism. I have no issue deeming you evil for performing human sacrifice even though several religions throughout history have done this. By the measure, you propose no one could be considered evil if they were a psychopath.