PC Principal III: Anti-Affection League: Subtitling Intensifies: The Movie, The Thread

[Niiro]

If it was a strawman the response should have been "that's not what I was arguing" not "why such an extreme example?"

An extreme example is made to cut to the point that the assertion does not hold up under scrutiny and is a poor argument.

[Niiro]

Behold, a man!

[archibaldcrane]

Gred and Niiro are correct, the rest of you are really bad at this.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Day]

how bad? racist tshirt bad or sex trafficking bad?

[Zealot]

Got 'em.

[Zealot]

A premise failing an extreme example does not defeat the premise.

[archibaldcrane]

Yes it does

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Tyrath]

If an argument (it's okay because the parents signed off on it) fails when applied to something really bad (sex trafficking), then it means that that argument was never good for determining whether or not something is okay in the first place.

[Zealot]

No, one has no relation to the other. One is clearly allowed by the law and the other is not.

[Zealot]

This is every single time your parents said "oh if your friends all jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" And I'm like no, I just want to pierce my ears, MOM.

[Gredival]

If an argument (it's okay because the parents signed off on it) fails when applied to something really bad (sex trafficking), then it means that that argument was never good for determining whether or not something is okay in the first place.

Ding ding ding.

Truth is universal. One demonstration of falsity in just one instance eliminates a premise from being universally applicable.

It just bears keeping in mind that there can be multiple failures from multiple premises.

yeah, this is strawman 101 lol

No this is literally Philosophy 101. The generation of hypotheticals which either force us to admit that there is something wrong with a principle, or that there is something wrong with our intuition.

This is the exact reason why the trolley problem is significant. You either commit to being a utilitarian by saying it's okay to kill the one person to save five, or you admit that something is wrong with utilitarianism.

[Niiro]

No, one has no relation to the other. One is clearly allowed by the law and the other is not.

No one was arguing what was legal.

This is every single time your parents said "oh if your friends all jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" And I'm like no, I just want to pierce my ears, MOM.

If your only reason for wanting your ears pierced was because your friends did too, that would be a completely valid argument.

[Gredival]

This is every single time your parents said "oh if your friends all jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" And I'm like no, I just want to pierce my ears, MOM.

You get to pierce your ears "if, and only if," you jump off a bridge when your friends do.

[Zealot]

Ok well philosophy is fine and all but the law says "here is the line," you can argue morality and extreme hypotheticals all day long but the line is where the line is.

[Zealot]

You get to pierce your ears "if, and only if," you jump off a bridge when your friends do.

The kid only got to be in the hoodie ad if, and only if, his parents sold him into sex slavery?

[Tyrath]

Ok well philosophy is fine and all but the law says "here is the line," you can argue morality and extreme hypotheticals all day long but the line is where the line is.

Yeah but legally that picture is perfectly fine. No one is arguing that it's against the law for H&M to post a racist pic.

It's a question of whether or not something is bad on principle. Sex trafficking isn't just bad because it's against the law. So you bringing the law into this is as irrelevant as the parents signing off on something argument.

[Mertron]

i was not aware this was the thread to discuss kantian categorical imperatives

[Zealot]

Look man, I didn't spend 3 years studying this stuff to not find excuses to drop it into conversation.

[Gredival]

The kid only got to be in the hoodie ad if, and only if, his parents sold him into sex slavery?

Have you forgotten your LSAT logic already?

"The principle of parental consent is universally valid if, and only if, it justifies parents selling children into sex slavery."

[Tyrath]

Look man, I didn't spend 3 years studying this stuff to not find excuses to drop it into conversation.

I'll allow it.