“There may be rules which it's possible to apply without exceptions, but most rules are not like that. Justifying one type of exception doesn't of itself let through any number of them.
[...]
Since when did support for a system of legitimate authority mean supporting authority irrespective of what it lays down?”
Since when, indeed. I believe what Norm has encountered is yet another adversarial "argument" that is framed on the basis of what I will call compressio ad absurdum. The gist of this strategy is as simple as it is trivializing — and false: for any situation having a continuum (or a countable multiplicity) of variations between extrema, pretend that only the extrema exist. In other words, compress all the possible variations such that only the extrema are considered, thereby establishing (false) plausibility for absurd assertions.
It is infuriating, for me at least, to have to defend a position that has been compressed in this fashion by someone skilled in such manipulative argumentation, albeit not necessarily sophisticated enough to even realize what (s)he has done. These are the sort of "debates" I tend to avoid, because, more likely sooner than later, I'm liable to label someone a f*cking idiot.
No comments:
Post a Comment