|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Buying drugs from Mexican drug cartels... morally acceptable? [Re: Silversoul]
#13896680 - 02/02/11 10:06 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
right.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Buying drugs from Mexican drug cartels... morally acceptable? [Re: Silversoul]
#13897244 - 02/02/11 11:41 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: I would argue that moral philosophy tends to get too hung up on the issue of assigning blame. It's important as far as the legal system goes, so that we know who to punish, but I think ethics should be more concerned with creating better social outcomes than pointing the finger at individuals. Clearly, the better social outcome would be brought about by legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. I don't think think we can realistically turn to boycotts as the ultimate means of social change. For a while I made a conscious effort to only buy shoes made in countries with strong child labor laws, but it ended up being a losing battle. I finally resigned myself to the fact that I wasn't going to stop sweatshop labor all by myself. It may help us feel morally just by telling others that they have "blood on their hands," but I don't it's ultimately helpful. Everyone who participates in our system of global capitalism has blood on their hands in some way or another. The real moral imperative is to fix our institutions so that there's less blood on all our hands.
shits deep b
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Buying drugs from Mexican drug cartels... morally acceptable? [Re: andrewss]
#13899166 - 02/03/11 11:37 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 2 months, 15 days
|
Re: Buying drugs from Mexican drug cartels... morally acceptable? [Re: Poid] 1
#13899170 - 02/03/11 11:38 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
use !
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
|
Epigallo
Stranger

Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 7 years, 4 days
|
Re: Buying drugs from Mexican drug cartels... morally acceptable? [Re: andrewss]
#13909419 - 02/05/11 09:50 AM (13 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What you fail to see is that any ad hominem fallacy can be excused as a mere observation. Of course we don't know the true intent; that is why we have to make a reasonable guess based on how the language is used.
A: Public health care will make our society more productive in the long term. B. You are a fucking hippie drug addict that I will have to pay for because you don't take care of yourself. Of course some lazy jerk like you you wants a free ride on public health care.
Was B attempting to refute A's argument? Or was he total in agreement with A, but just making an observation? Most people would think the prior.
Quote:
deCypher said: Hmmm. I mean, sure, in all probability the implication is there that person A's argument is false but since it's not explicitly given in his statement can we still count that as a necessary ad hominem? It's definitely a personal attack but it just seems like calling it a fallacy relies on assuming that our interpretation of person B's implications is 100% true, which may not be the case. I guess I'm just stuck on technicalities here... 
Well, whether it is truly a fallacy all depends on whether person B actually thinks his personal attack discredits person A's argument or not. And that is indeterminable. But if the implication is strong, then it makes sense to alert person B of his fallacy.
Besides, any time you introduce any kind of judgment of character into a debate, it has the effect of appearing to dilute the strength of the other person's argument -- even if it logically doesn't discredit it in any way. It is just an automatic association that the mind makes. It is like how marketers get celebrities to talk about using certain products; even though it logically doesn't make the products better, it sways many people to buy them. Any personal judgment introduced into a debate might alter its course in a similar way. You can't prevent the mind from making that association. So I would argue that even if you think that the attacker understands that his offense does not logically discredit anything, you should go ahead and call him out on his bullshit tactic.
|
|