3 ms·

The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. No we're not. We can decide to stop at any time

The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. No we're not. We can decide to stop at any time. We don't have to be logically consistent in how we decide rules. And, in fact, we aren't. Consider, for example, free speech restrictions in the US. You can't yell "fire!" in a theater. Why not? Because it incites distress, and can cause harm. By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended. But wait, wait... isn't "mean", in it of itself, subjective? So then doesn't this mean that this same logic could go for any arbitrary words, technically? Okay, then we should ban all words, right? No. Wrong. We shouldn't do that. Everything is a case-by-case basis. WE decide when to continue and when to give it up. Not you, not logic.

closewith 1y ago
I think you should re-read your comment and then re-read this thread.
- const_cast 1y ago
  No I read it correctly - my point stands. Extrapolating things out doesn't just magically work.
  - closewith 1y ago
    You are agreeing with me. > The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. Yes. It's inherently subjective whether animal husbandry is worth the input resources and each person can decide for themselves is it's worth it or wasteful, as with every other example (travel, medicine, etc). > By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended. Yes, again you're agreeing with me. We collectively choose the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and practices. We have speed limits but don't ban cars, we regulate e-waste disposal but don't prohibit computers, and we can and should forbid cruel and environmentally damaging practises in husbandry, but not ban meat production. The person I'm replying to is making the opposite argument, that husbandry is inherently wasteful and therefore should be subject to regulation. That is the is–ought fallacy, which I pointed out using reducto ad absurdum. So again, re-read the thread.

closewith 1y ago

I think you should re-read your comment and then re-read this thread.

const_cast 1y ago
No I read it correctly - my point stands. Extrapolating things out doesn't just magically work.
- closewith 1y ago
  You are agreeing with me. > The fallacy here is that we're somehow, magically, required to move on to more extreme forms of the same logic. Yes. It's inherently subjective whether animal husbandry is worth the input resources and each person can decide for themselves is it's worth it or wasteful, as with every other example (travel, medicine, etc). > By that logic, shouldn't we also ban all mean words? I mean, they might incite distress, and they can cause emotional harm, and even physical harm if someone gets too offended. Yes, again you're agreeing with me. We collectively choose the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and practices. We have speed limits but don't ban cars, we regulate e-waste disposal but don't prohibit computers, and we can and should forbid cruel and environmentally damaging practises in husbandry, but not ban meat production. The person I'm replying to is making the opposite argument, that husbandry is inherently wasteful and therefore should be subject to regulation. That is the is–ought fallacy, which I pointed out using reducto ad absurdum. So again, re-read the thread.