Politeness is often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
Rudeness is also often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
It might be silly to have a “I don’t eat yellow food” diet, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have the concept of yellow.
I admit, the complaints “chemical isn’t a natural category” and “avoiding chemicals is a silly diet” are distinct. But somehow it makes sense for me to say the former when I also think the latter. I think, the fact that the category isn’t natural makes the diet sillier. E.g. if someone said “I don’t eat meat (for non-moral reasons)”, I may still think they’re being silly, but at least I can imagine possible worlds where that diet would make sense. On the other hand, “I don’t eat meat from animals with 3 toes”, is on a whole different order of magnitude of silliness.
What do you mean by “works well”? Getting positive responses from real people? I doubt it, but I don’t think I’ve ever explained it like this to anyone. I don’t do the “everything is chemicals” reply that often in the first place.
I wouldn’t be surprised there was some Bible verse about how it is a sin to eat meat from animals with 3 toes. Religions tend to have diet advice which is “silly” by your definition.
Rudeness is also often useful instrumentally in order to communicate efficiently.
I admit, the complaints “chemical isn’t a natural category” and “avoiding chemicals is a silly diet” are distinct. But somehow it makes sense for me to say the former when I also think the latter. I think, the fact that the category isn’t natural makes the diet sillier. E.g. if someone said “I don’t eat meat (for non-moral reasons)”, I may still think they’re being silly, but at least I can imagine possible worlds where that diet would make sense. On the other hand, “I don’t eat meat from animals with 3 toes”, is on a whole different order of magnitude of silliness.
Interesting—to rephrase, you’re saying that you might react this way as part of a reductio-ad-absurdum argument? Seems reasonable, does it work well?
What do you mean by “works well”? Getting positive responses from real people? I doubt it, but I don’t think I’ve ever explained it like this to anyone. I don’t do the “everything is chemicals” reply that often in the first place.
I wouldn’t be surprised there was some Bible verse about how it is a sin to eat meat from animals with 3 toes. Religions tend to have diet advice which is “silly” by your definition.