5 ms·

"We shouldn't drop wages because people won't be able to pay their bills". Appeal to consequences. Try another.

fuejhdjc 12y ago
As if the parent comment wasn't as well. I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. Suppose we continue with the status quo and jobs begin miraculously materializing: there's a very good chance that they will be lower paying than what we have now, and it will still be difficult to make a living. To some extent it's a lose-lose situation unless we can come up with a third option like a universal basic income. Edit: My, aren't we feeling pedantic today? I have a great idea: let's argue semantics rather than content!
- innguest 12y ago
  > As if the parent comment wasn't as well. Tu quoque fallacy. Try again. > I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. No. Watch closely. You said if we drop wages then people can't pay their bills, and therefore we should not drop wages. Your claim is that we should not do something based on the consequences of that action. The parent said that increasing minimum wage is equivalent to making it more expensive to employ someone. The parent is not claiming anything, but genuinely asking: - assuming increasing minimum wages is another way to say that we would make employment more expensive - then how is it that making employment more expensive helps decrease unemployment? Which is a genuine question that you have not answered. > Suppose we continue with the status quo False dilemma. What is being argued is neither continuing the status quo nor increasing wages, but a third alternative, namely (I presume) abolishing minimum wage laws.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > Edit: My, aren't we feeling pedantic today? Insulting is how the intellectually dishonest say "I'm out of arguments". > I have a great idea: let's argue semantics rather than content! How about you just answer the question: How is it that making employing someone more expensive (which is what increasing the minimum wage effectively does) help decrease unemployment? Why can you not answer such a straightforward question? Why do you avoid answering it by insulting me?
mrow84 12y ago
"We shouldn't increase the minimum wage because employment will go down". Appeal to consequences. Try another. Did I get the right level of condescension?
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Given that he's arguing a should statement rather than an is statement, "appeal to consequences", in this context, is actually consequentialism, and is the best framework we have for rationally justifying imperative statements.
- innguest 12y ago
  I disagree. I think things are wrong on principle, and not just because of the results. See deontology for a better alternative to consequentialism: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1og/deontology_for_consequentialists/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1og/deontology_for_consequentialists...
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Well, I gave reading that the old college try, but nothing in there actually justifies deontology, let alone your peculiar form of capitalist deontology, as Correct, let alone as a superior alternative to consequentialism.

As if the parent comment wasn't as well. I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. Suppose we continue with the status quo and jobs begin miraculously materializing: there's a very good chance that they will be lower paying than what we have now, and it will still be difficult to make a living. To some extent it's a lose-lose situation unless we can come up with a third option like a universal basic income. Edit: My, aren't we feeling pedantic today? I have a great idea: let's argue semantics rather than content!

innguest 12y ago
> As if the parent comment wasn't as well. Tu quoque fallacy. Try again. > I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. No. Watch closely. You said if we drop wages then people can't pay their bills, and therefore we should not drop wages. Your claim is that we should not do something based on the consequences of that action. The parent said that increasing minimum wage is equivalent to making it more expensive to employ someone. The parent is not claiming anything, but genuinely asking: - assuming increasing minimum wages is another way to say that we would make employment more expensive - then how is it that making employment more expensive helps decrease unemployment? Which is a genuine question that you have not answered. > Suppose we continue with the status quo False dilemma. What is being argued is neither continuing the status quo nor increasing wages, but a third alternative, namely (I presume) abolishing minimum wage laws.
- innguest 12y ago
  > Edit: My, aren't we feeling pedantic today? Insulting is how the intellectually dishonest say "I'm out of arguments". > I have a great idea: let's argue semantics rather than content! How about you just answer the question: How is it that making employing someone more expensive (which is what increasing the minimum wage effectively does) help decrease unemployment? Why can you not answer such a straightforward question? Why do you avoid answering it by insulting me?

mrow84 12y ago

"We shouldn't increase the minimum wage because employment will go down". Appeal to consequences. Try another. Did I get the right level of condescension?

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

Given that he's arguing a should statement rather than an is statement, "appeal to consequences", in this context, is actually consequentialism, and is the best framework we have for rationally justifying imperative statements.

innguest 12y ago
I disagree. I think things are wrong on principle, and not just because of the results. See deontology for a better alternative to consequentialism: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1og/deontology_for_consequentialists/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1og/deontology_for_consequentialists...
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Well, I gave reading that the old college try, but nothing in there actually justifies deontology, let alone your peculiar form of capitalist deontology, as Correct, let alone as a superior alternative to consequentialism.