3 ms·

Sure, taking things to the extremes has been proved to be the best way to start a discussion and the only sure way to show an unbiased view of the facts at hand

Sure, taking things to the extremes has been proved to be the best way to start a discussion and the only sure way to show an unbiased view of the facts at hand. I'm impressed by your incredible level-headedness, sir.

aaronem 13y ago
Well, and who better than you to decide what's biased and what's not? And what could be more level-headed than to say that "[the matter at hand] makes me sick to my stomach"? Leaving snark aside, it seems telling that both your leveller's bias, and your repellent pride in same, are entirely compatible in your own mind with the sort of "let's all be grown-ups here, shall we?" pose you take one comment later. "Unbiased" and "level-headed", it seems, mean exactly what you define them to mean, and you define them to mean being entirely in agreement with how you yourself regard these matters. I find this rather marvelous, or would if it weren't so lamentably common.
superpatosainz 13y ago
Sir, if I preoperly recall, that's exactly how you discard premises. Taking a premise and applying it to a more extreme situation just battletests it. It's done in justice and law courses, etc. "If the common good justifies killing X agent, then it must be ok for a doctor to kill a patient in their sleep, take his organs and save three people with his two kidneys and heart." Also, what Yale did wasn't right, and the students just defend themselves... If, for example, you were robbed wouldn't you care? "Oh but there are thousands more people poorer than me, I shouldn't bother".
- iamdave 13y ago
  "If the common good justifies killing X agent, then it must be ok for a doctor to kill a patient in their sleep, take his organs and save three people with his two kidneys and heart." Isn't that a variation of a semantic shift fallacy? [1] --- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
  - vanattab 13y ago
    I just read the link and I am not following your reasoning. Please explain.
  - wfn 13y ago
    Just an FYI: that wiki link does not seem to lead to an article about the fallacy in question, or any kind of fallacy for that matter. You might have been thinking about the continuum fallacy[1], false equivocation, straw man, or red herring. In any regard, I agree that the reasoning in question falls within the bounds of one or other informal fallacies[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
- justjimmy 13y ago
  "Taking a premise and applying it to a more extreme situation just battletests it. It's done in justice and law courses, etc." I'm really interested in this sentence/concept - is there a term for this or anywhere I can read more about the concept behind this statement?
  - superpatosainz 13y ago
    I based that statement on what I saw in Michael Sandel's HarvardX (edX partner) Justice course. There's a lot of thought experiments and hypothetical situations premises are tested against to see if they still hold to be moral; really interesting.

aaronem 13y ago

Well, and who better than you to decide what's biased and what's not? And what could be more level-headed than to say that "[the matter at hand] makes me sick to my stomach"? Leaving snark aside, it seems telling that both your leveller's bias, and your repellent pride in same, are entirely compatible in your own mind with the sort of "let's all be grown-ups here, shall we?" pose you take one comment later. "Unbiased" and "level-headed", it seems, mean exactly what you define them to mean, and you define them to mean being entirely in agreement with how you yourself regard these matters. I find this rather marvelous, or would if it weren't so lamentably common.

superpatosainz 13y ago

Sir, if I preoperly recall, that's exactly how you discard premises. Taking a premise and applying it to a more extreme situation just battletests it. It's done in justice and law courses, etc. "If the common good justifies killing X agent, then it must be ok for a doctor to kill a patient in their sleep, take his organs and save three people with his two kidneys and heart." Also, what Yale did wasn't right, and the students just defend themselves... If, for example, you were robbed wouldn't you care? "Oh but there are thousands more people poorer than me, I shouldn't bother".

iamdave 13y ago
"If the common good justifies killing X agent, then it must be ok for a doctor to kill a patient in their sleep, take his organs and save three people with his two kidneys and heart." Isn't that a variation of a semantic shift fallacy? [1] --- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
- vanattab 13y ago
  I just read the link and I am not following your reasoning. Please explain.
- wfn 13y ago
  Just an FYI: that wiki link does not seem to lead to an article about the fallacy in question, or any kind of fallacy for that matter. You might have been thinking about the continuum fallacy[1], false equivocation, straw man, or red herring. In any regard, I agree that the reasoning in question falls within the bounds of one or other informal fallacies[2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy
justjimmy 13y ago
"Taking a premise and applying it to a more extreme situation just battletests it. It's done in justice and law courses, etc." I'm really interested in this sentence/concept - is there a term for this or anywhere I can read more about the concept behind this statement?
- superpatosainz 13y ago
  I based that statement on what I saw in Michael Sandel's HarvardX (edX partner) Justice course. There's a lot of thought experiments and hypothetical situations premises are tested against to see if they still hold to be moral; really interesting.