Reply With Quote
I'll take that as a "no I did nothing"
It's ok, I'm sure the people of Houston don't want you violating a logical rule to help them.
And still tu quoque
I'll take that as a "no I did nothing"
It's ok, I'm sure the people of Houston don't want you violating a logical rule to help them.
Of course you will. You think you're winning using tu quoque.
K, what's the minimum amount of help i should give to Houston before I get to call Marriott out as assholes?
If I give $5 to Joel Osteen are we good?
More than the nothing you've done.
So if I give 1 penny to a charity, we're good?
Ask the charity.
Lol the charity isn't calling me a hypocrite. You are.
I'm asking you specifically what your minimum requirement for is that gives me license to call Marriott assholes.
You're just like everyone else here, you've adopted a secularized form of Christian based values and have taken on a false sense of moral superiority. Your rings hollow as and DMC is going a good job of pointing that out. You're not better than anyone.
Lol Christian based values.
You mean the values that call for the killing of the gays
The premise that counts is the one you actually made, dumbass.
I can, though, see why you wouldn't want your nose rubbed in such an obvious up.
So, let's break this down.
If it isn't a tu quoque fallacy, then what is it?
A couple of possibilities.
1) Red herring.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...50/Red-HerringArgument A is presented by person 1.
Person 2 introduces argument B.
Argument A is abandoned.
Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed." ----------[Argument A is presented by person 1]
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?" ---------------------------[Person 2 introduces argument B.]
Person A: "No."------------------------------------------------------ [Person 2 introduces argument B.]
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address." [Argument A is abandoned.]
Argument A in this case would be "X is a problem that needs to be addressed"
DMC has abandoned the issue of whether X is a problem that needs to be addressed, and focused on whether Person A feels a problem should be collectively addressed, without ever really addressing "X is a problem that needs to be addressed".
"Wrong" can be objectively demonstrated in this case.
Exposing people asking for safety of evacuation to potentially lethal harm in the form of a powerful, building destroying hurricane.
"Reckless disregard" is a legal term for a reason. Harm, or potential harm is a provable, objective metric.
I would define "wrong" as harmful.
Life is preferable to death, health is preferable to injury. Pleasure is preferable to pain. Pain is preferable to absence of pain.
Exposing someone to potential death, when you can easily, and at no cost, save them, is wrong.
yeah but what did you do to help Houston
"socilaistic" France has a national law that criminalizes anyone who fails to help a person in distress.
Such a law would never be passed in the brutal, -you, Rugged Individualism of American society.
It's not a logical argument. You haven't proven Marriott did anything wrong. You only stated they did something you felt was wrong. Since "wrong" in this sense isn't a binary function, and there's no premise that insists it is, then your argument is moot. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise, and in fact you don't even have a clear premise, only a feeling.
I merely stated that your feeling of "wrong" wasn't strong enough to cause you to want to do what you claim to feel is right.
Putting the
Person A criticizes the response of person B to an event in a distant area
Person A has a similar event happen in their area
Person A is able to help
Person A did not help
ergo
Person A is a hypocrite
None of this absolves person B of wrongdoing, it only paints person A as an unreliable standard for moral right and wrong.
ergo
Person A's assessment that wrong was done is dubious at best.
Wrong cannot be objectively determined by you. That's my point, dip .
Putting the
It's a fallacy, dumbass. It's been explained to you in as simple terms as possible.
How was person A supposed to get their yacht to the islands ahead of the hurricane?Putting the
Person A criticizes the response of person B to an event in a distant area
Person A has a similar event happen in their area
Person A is able to help
Person A did not help
ergo
Person A is a hypocrite
None of this absolves person B of wrongdoing, it only paints person A as an unreliable standard for moral right and wrong.
ergo
Person A's assessment that wrong was done is dubious at best.
Oh right, by donating $1 to Houston.
"similar event"
I know your cuck is stuck but get it loose for this exercise.
It's not a fallacy since there was no logical argument to begin with. It's a simple question. The obvious answer based on your floundering is you did nothing but post your quips on the forum.
You know I'm right, that I did not argue against right or wrong, but against the importance of your (his) hand wringing about it. You're a fraud.
It can be objectively determined. Easily so, if you are honest about it.
Is life preferable to death?
I have more than feelings. You can try for a strawman if you want.
It was wrong, in an objective moral sense, to refuse people onto a boat when that refusal puts their lives in direct risk of death or grievous injury.
I have given a definition of "wrong" and "harm", and provided a statement of fact based on that harm. I don't "feel" it is wrong. That is a distortion.
Explain how it can be objectively determined without you using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy or circular reasoning.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
