This is my first post here so I apologise to everyone if I break any protocol or repeat what has been said many times before.
My Academic background is in two disciplines. Firstly history and secondly philosophy. Within the study of philosophy we look at argument in great detail and the arguments here generally come into what we refer to as common fallacies which have been given an appropriate taxonomy.
These aren;t really represented here except in the introduction.
1) Abortion is murder!
This is not a logical fallacy. It is either wrong or right and it depends on two issues: in The Anglo Saxon world of common law ( that’s USA, Canada,Ireland, UK , New Zealand, most Carribean countries etc ) Murder must be i) The Killing ii) Of a person, iii) In being iv) unlawfully and v) with malice aforethought.
For abortion to be murder the fetus must be i) a person and ii) abortion must be illegal. (i) is a matter of discussion and (ii) uis just a simple fact determined locally
ii) Euthanasia is murder!
It is technically murder. Those of us who are pro euthanasia just beleive it shouldn’t be illegal and therefore no longer murder.
iii) Taxation is theft.
Again just wrong because theft must be unlawfull.
iV) Affirmative action is racist
It is racist. there is no Issue here . Indeed the bad argument is yours. You argument appears to be that if something is ‘good’ then it can’t be racist. This is just incorrect. There is nothing that implies morality within the definition given in English lanaguge dictionaries apart from those published by the Marxist left (whom I implictly reject).
I beleive that black people win Gold at the Olympics 100m every year because the human varient found in West africa has the highest proportion of fast twitch to low twitch muscles that produce incredible explosive power. It is something that sports scientists agree on. It is implictly racist because it states that someone has a superior facility (in this case sprinting) on a racial basis and yet it is morally neutral.
Your argument is false because you applied qualia to the word ‘racist’ that are not implicit.
I will now read your suggested essays before replying further.
It is racist. there is no Issue here . Indeed the bad argument is yours. You argument appears to be that if something is ‘good’ then it can’t be racist. This is just incorrect. There is nothing that implies morality within the definition given in English lanaguge dictionaries apart from those published by the Marxist left (whom I implictly reject).
The problem here is not that Yvain has made flawed arguments but rather that you incorrectly interpreted the post.
Yvain is not arguing that affirmative action is or is not racist nor is he arguing about whether affirmative action is good or bad. He is pointing out that the (implied) argument in the quoted claim is flawed for the reasons specified in his introduction. Nothing you say here justifies the claim that “The bad argument is [Yvain’s]”.
This is not a logical fallacy. It is either wrong or right and it depends on two issues: in The Anglo Saxon world of common law ( that’s USA, Canada,Ireland, UK , New Zealand, most Carribean countries etc ) Murder must be i) The Killing ii) Of a person, iii) In being iv) unlawfully and v) with malice aforethought.
You are assuming that the person asserting this proposition is referring to the legal concept of murder (in a particular jurisdiction) rather than the common-sense notion of murder. This assumption is probably false in the large majority of cases. The rest of your objections suffer from similar maladies.
A bit of fair warning: If you haven’t done so already, the About LessWrong and Welcome to LessWrong pages along with the FAQ should cover most of the community norms and important stuff you’d want to know to frequent this place.
More relevant to this post, the above sequence on words is in direct relationship with both your points and Yvain’s, and explains precisely how Yvain is right in that those forms and arguments can be wrong to use. For a particular example:
Euthanasia is murder!
It is technically murder. Those of us who are pro euthanasia just beleive it shouldn’t be illegal and therefore no longer murder.
While you’re at least not committing the mistake of Arguing By Definition, something many LessWrong users find very trollish, the “technically” part is exactly why Yvain calls this the Worst Argument in the World, in that, yes, the definition of murder does somewhat include the act of Euthanasia—and people know this—but euthanasia is very far from other kinds of murder. The full Human’s Guide to Words sequence covers these things pretty well, and along with the Core Sequences, establishes the basic rationality techniques that most people on LessWrong expect other users to use.
My aim is not to debate your arguments, however, but if you’d like I could gladly attempt to work with you on figuring out where your objections come from and how we can all have more accurate information and better communication channels. If I’m not mistaken, you’re exactly the kind of person LessWrong wants to attract.
This is my first post here so I apologise to everyone if I break any protocol or repeat what has been said many times before.
My Academic background is in two disciplines. Firstly history and secondly philosophy. Within the study of philosophy we look at argument in great detail and the arguments here generally come into what we refer to as common fallacies which have been given an appropriate taxonomy.
These aren;t really represented here except in the introduction.
1) Abortion is murder!
This is not a logical fallacy. It is either wrong or right and it depends on two issues: in The Anglo Saxon world of common law ( that’s USA, Canada,Ireland, UK , New Zealand, most Carribean countries etc ) Murder must be i) The Killing ii) Of a person, iii) In being iv) unlawfully and v) with malice aforethought.
For abortion to be murder the fetus must be i) a person and ii) abortion must be illegal. (i) is a matter of discussion and (ii) uis just a simple fact determined locally
ii) Euthanasia is murder!
It is technically murder. Those of us who are pro euthanasia just beleive it shouldn’t be illegal and therefore no longer murder.
iii) Taxation is theft.
Again just wrong because theft must be unlawfull.
iV) Affirmative action is racist
It is racist. there is no Issue here . Indeed the bad argument is yours. You argument appears to be that if something is ‘good’ then it can’t be racist. This is just incorrect. There is nothing that implies morality within the definition given in English lanaguge dictionaries apart from those published by the Marxist left (whom I implictly reject).
I beleive that black people win Gold at the Olympics 100m every year because the human varient found in West africa has the highest proportion of fast twitch to low twitch muscles that produce incredible explosive power. It is something that sports scientists agree on. It is implictly racist because it states that someone has a superior facility (in this case sprinting) on a racial basis and yet it is morally neutral.
Your argument is false because you applied qualia to the word ‘racist’ that are not implicit.
I will now read your suggested essays before replying further.
Thank you for your time.
Fenris.
The problem here is not that Yvain has made flawed arguments but rather that you incorrectly interpreted the post.
Yvain is not arguing that affirmative action is or is not racist nor is he arguing about whether affirmative action is good or bad. He is pointing out that the (implied) argument in the quoted claim is flawed for the reasons specified in his introduction. Nothing you say here justifies the claim that “The bad argument is [Yvain’s]”.
You are assuming that the person asserting this proposition is referring to the legal concept of murder (in a particular jurisdiction) rather than the common-sense notion of murder. This assumption is probably false in the large majority of cases. The rest of your objections suffer from similar maladies.
Welcome to LessWrong!
A bit of fair warning: If you haven’t done so already, the About LessWrong and Welcome to LessWrong pages along with the FAQ should cover most of the community norms and important stuff you’d want to know to frequent this place.
None is required reading, but users will frequently point you to the Sequences if you’re doing or saying something that has been covered already, especially using words, labels and categories incorrectly.
More relevant to this post, the above sequence on words is in direct relationship with both your points and Yvain’s, and explains precisely how Yvain is right in that those forms and arguments can be wrong to use. For a particular example:
While you’re at least not committing the mistake of Arguing By Definition, something many LessWrong users find very trollish, the “technically” part is exactly why Yvain calls this the Worst Argument in the World, in that, yes, the definition of murder does somewhat include the act of Euthanasia—and people know this—but euthanasia is very far from other kinds of murder. The full Human’s Guide to Words sequence covers these things pretty well, and along with the Core Sequences, establishes the basic rationality techniques that most people on LessWrong expect other users to use.
My aim is not to debate your arguments, however, but if you’d like I could gladly attempt to work with you on figuring out where your objections come from and how we can all have more accurate information and better communication channels. If I’m not mistaken, you’re exactly the kind of person LessWrong wants to attract.