Eliezer: “In the original case, I talked about wiggins. Here, summarizing, I have to pick a better-known example of how arbitrarily excluding something is not only bad, but a case of trying to get away with something without justifying it.”
At the risk (certainty?) of sounding churlish, ad Hitlerum is not a convenient shorthand. It’s a logical fallacy which you’ve used a couple of times here. Being on guard against such thought patterns is the point of this blog.
Suppose that I referred to the non-human status of a 20 week foetus as an example of how “arbitrarily excluding something is not only bad, but a case of trying to get away with something without justifying it”.
This isn’t the space to air our political views.
Incidentally, I am pro-death and well aware that negroes are human (although I don’t need quotation marks around the word “negro”, except where required by grammar).
Eliezer: “In the original case, I talked about wiggins. Here, summarizing, I have to pick a better-known example of how arbitrarily excluding something is not only bad, but a case of trying to get away with something without justifying it.”
At the risk (certainty?) of sounding churlish, ad Hitlerum is not a convenient shorthand. It’s a logical fallacy which you’ve used a couple of times here. Being on guard against such thought patterns is the point of this blog.
Suppose that I referred to the non-human status of a 20 week foetus as an example of how “arbitrarily excluding something is not only bad, but a case of trying to get away with something without justifying it”.
This isn’t the space to air our political views.
Incidentally, I am pro-death and well aware that negroes are human (although I don’t need quotation marks around the word “negro”, except where required by grammar).
As I said, sorry to sound churlish.
[comment deleted]
Wait, is that the opposite of “pro-life”, or the opposite of “pro-immortality”?