I’ll give it a try. I lost my hands in a meat mincing accident when I was a baby. I have two high capacity hydraulic robotic clamps as replacements so I am quite interested to see if your method will relieve my ptsd
This is the same grouping fallacy as the vaccine arguments. A lot of these people have trouble understanding nuance. The vaccine can be harmful to some and beneficial to others, it’s on a scale and it’s impossible to know who falls where on the scale. That doesn’t mean overall it’s a bad thing to do.
For op’s example there are some leftists who are lazy and weak, there are also some who are ruthless and there are some that are ruling class elites. The problem is when their groups are applied to the whole to suit whatever narrative they want it becomes nonsensical and dangerous.
Correct yes, I can see there are two ideas here. We both agree immorality is independent of conversation and no matter what happens in the conversation it will not make the immorality untrue. The point I am trying to articulate may be more whether or not it is appropriate for someone who is simultaneously kicking puppies to point out how immoral it is that I am kicking puppies, while refusing to acknowledge the immorality of their own puppy kicking from a social point of view. Thoughts?
Yes the argument I’m making is about if it is appropriate for the person to be arguing in the first place without considering their own hypocrisy, not whether x is actually bad so I see what you mean about it being off topic. It’s like them saying everyone leaves their shopping cart in the parking lot and it’s bad but when I do it it’s ok, their point about it being ok when they do it is irrelevant, it’s still bad.
No this is not my argument, I see what you are saying and agree with the premise of actions being immoral prior to any conversation about them. My argument is more about someone arguing in bad faith than morality.
If person B (who does not kick puppies) accuses me of being immoral, then there is little debate that the criticism is appropriately being delivered in good faith. If person A (who also kicks puppies) accuses me of being immoral, then I am free to use the “no you” argument as a litmus test for whether or not the person is arguing in good faith. If they accept that their actions are also immoral then a good faith debate or conversation can appropriately take place. If they refuse to acknowledge their own puppy kicking is immoral then they can basically fuck off. I completely agree that neither conversation changes the fact kicking puppies is immoral no matter how fun (joke).
I do agree that your example is deflection although it is not an example I would describe as not exactly the same. While it has some similarities it is not close enough to exact to be described that way.
I disagree for one that it is “in fact” a logical fallacy and also that their actions are immaterial to your actions. To make that counterpoint I would have had to have been aware that the person calling out my puppy kicking did in fact kick puppies. You can not say this knowledge is immaterial.
While you can still conclude that my puppy kicking is immoral it does not serve any purpose because the criticism came from someone equally immoral. I could even argue (if true) that I’m only kicking puppies because I saw them doing it and I didn’t know it was immoral.
“No you” is similar to “don’t throw stones in glass houses” and is a reasonable point.
I think it’s a litmus test for if the person is arguing in good faith or criticising with the goal of moral superiority. If a concession can be given by the person being critical after “no you” this shows the criticism really is out of concern and want for improvement rather than simply satisfying the criticisers own indignation.
I can’t tell if this is a chatgtp generated post either but I’ll reply cause I don’t really care. I think you are overthinking things. You can’t prove a lot of what you are saying, no one can but at the end of the day does it really matter? If everything did go “black” when it’s out of your consciousness and then reappears with a rational historical timeline when you look at it again, what’s the difference if it didn’t go “black”? I think a lot of what you’re thinking comes from an attempt of your mind to rationalize how little any of this means. It’s making you think you are so important that no one else’s life is even real. Like you’re the main character in the universe (you are the main character in your universe but not “the” universe) and everyone is just npcs in your world (we are not). The same thing applies, even if I was an NPC or you’re an NPC in my consciousness, why would that be any different from all of this being “real”. You’ll feel better if you think everyone else is just like you. Living their lives as best they can, most of them trying to be good people.
She was right to hide her face in this picture