The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Donerail]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

[John Dule]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

Maybe you don't. Most sane people do.

[Velasco]

And second of all, there is nothing wrong with the CIA’s past record in Cuba. It would have been for the best had they succeeded in killing Castro and overthrowing his regime.

Wait a second...so Russia unleashing Twitter trolls to spread pro-Trump memes was one step below an act of war, but the CIA supporting coups across Latin America - many of which toppled lawful and democratic governments - is nothing wrong?

The CIA is merely a tool of US foreign policy. Immediately opposing a movement because it has CIA backing is absurd. The CIA funded Radio Free Europe and Solidarity in Poland.

And the FSB -or whatever it's called now the successor of the KGB- is a tool of Russia's foreign policy.  When someone argues there's nothing wrong with political assasination, either that person is immoral or we are dealing with Vladimir Putin. Platitudes and double standards: two in one

[Donerail]

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

There is no rule that commands people to apply a principle they espouse in the context of a particular situation to also apply to "any given situation." That is why we refer to those situations as "different." Recognizing that different situations can call for the application of different principles is a key feature of critical thinking.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

You realize that the original comment was a throwaway line and not some Socratic pronouncement, right? The point is that Repubs' attacks on Floyd are pathetic because living a perfectly moral life should not be a requirement to not be brutalized by a police officer.

[If my soul was made of stone]

And second of all, there is nothing wrong with the CIA’s past record in Cuba. It would have been for the best had they succeeded in killing Castro and overthrowing his regime.

Waiting for Barkley to come out in support of Operation Condor next.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

And second of all, there is nothing wrong with the CIA’s past record in Cuba. It would have been for the best had they succeeded in killing Castro and overthrowing his regime.

Waiting for Barkley to come out in support of Operation Condor next.

Alben knows he would have had no financial stake in whatever ghoulish multinationals took over the island in that scenario, right?

[John Dule]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

Maybe you don't. Most sane people do.

What are you even talking about? Can't you hold everyone to the same moral standard and then conclude from there that Hitler is a bad person? Why would you need to assess him any differently from how you'd assess anyone else?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

Maybe you don't. Most sane people do.

What are you even talking about? Can't you hold everyone to the same moral standard and then conclude from there that Hitler is a bad person? Why would you needYou  to assess him any differently from how you'd assess anyone else?

You don't assess any criminals, even serial killers, as you do for a government or military leader who engaged in genocide.

[Alcibiades]

Yeah, I don’t understand what some people are saying here. Hitler is considered a uniquely evil individual because we apply the same moral standards to him as anyone else, and conclude that genocide is a uniquely evil crime.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

For Christ's sake. If you really view the world as something to be judged solely between black and white rather than shades of grey, go get your eyes checked. I refuse to believe this is the case for any rationally-minded person.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What exactly is going on here?

[Alcibiades]

For Christ's sake. If you really view the world as something to be judged solely between black and white rather than shades of grey, go get your eyes checked. I refuse to believe this is the case for any rationally-minded person.

I don’t really get what this has to do with the topic at hand. For reference, I only started reading at the point when judging Hitler “by a different moral standard” was brought up. I have now looked back at the origin of this, and TheReckoning was of course being a third-rate provocateur, but that doesn’t change the substance of the subsequent debate.

[Hindsight was 2020]

aha, your claim that “it’s deeply disturbing that conservatives have developed an intense hatred toward a random guy who got murdered by cops” failed to consider literally every possible scenario — what about Hitler?? It is, therefore, not a universally applicable maxim and has been destroyed by logic.

The correct response to this kind of “counterargument” is “that’s real stupid bro.”

Huh. It never occurred to me that some people might just not care about being hypocrites.

Well, let this be a learning experience. Most people are perfectly comfortable applying different standards of moral judgment to an unemployed truck driver and Adolf Hitler. Understanding and appreciating this fact will help you engage better with others.

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

That completely ridiculous logic because not all situations are the same ie a truck driver with a trouble criminal past vs someone who committed genocide. That’s like arguing all crimes are equally morally reprehensible and a jaywalker is no morally different than a serial killer

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

For Christ's sake. If you really view the world as something to be judged solely between black and white rather than shades of grey, go get your eyes checked. I refuse to believe this is the case for any rationally-minded person.

I don’t really get what this has to do with the topic at hand. For reference, I only started reading at the point when judging Hitler “by a different moral standard” was brought up. I have now looked back at the origin of this, and TheReckoning was of course being a third-rate provocateur, but that doesn’t change the substance of the subsequent debate.

Perhaps I'm just out-Godwin'd now. The frequent comparison of "thing I dislike" or "person I dislike" to Hitler has minimized what he and actual Nazis did/are doing. There is a reason it should be limited to extreme circumstances.

But yes, the origin of this topic was TheReckoning's misuse of analogies. George Floyd wasn't a saint but neither does he deserve the (often inaccurate) character assassination from the media and the right. Floyd, if anything, paid for the robbery he had attempted years ago. And he did it over 9 minutes and 29 seconds.

[John Dule]

The point is that Repubs' attacks on Floyd are pathetic because living a perfectly moral life should not be a requirement to not be brutalized by a police officer.

Now, that is a fair argument, but that's not what was said. The argument presented was that "One should not feel animosity towards someone who is dead and who never personally did them any harm." It is solely this line of reasoning that Reckoning was criticizing-- but rather than engage with this criticism, you (and others) piled on top of him without taking a moment to carefully read what he was saying. You read it as "George Floyd = Adolf Hitler," smelled blood, and didn't think before you typed.

There is no rule that commands people to apply a principle they espouse in the context of a particular situation to also apply to "any given situation." That is why we refer to those situations as "different." Recognizing that different situations can call for the application of different principles is a key feature of critical thinking.

There was nothing inherently "different" about the analogous situation that Reckoning presented. He took a set of logic that was applied to one individual and then applied it to another individual, and now you guys are angry that the logic didn't hold up under that other circumstance.

Regardless of how you feel about Reckoning (he and I have our disagreements, to be sure), he is objectively correct in this instance, and trying to obfuscate that by zeroing in on the indelicate language he used does not disprove his point.

The frequent comparison of "thing I dislike" or "person I dislike" to Hitler has minimized what he and actual Nazis did/are doing.

Again: He did not "compare" George Floyd to Hitler. He took a bad line of reasoning that was being applied to George Floyd and then applied it to Hitler (a notoriously evil person) in order to prove that the reasoning was flawed. As I said above, his wording was indelicate, but that does not excuse this pileup of people who misrepresented his post.

[John Dule]

If someone espouses a principle, they should be willing to apply that principle equally to any given situation. If they cannot do that, then that is indicative of poor critical thinking skills.

And I don't think people hold Hitler to "a different standard of moral judgement" than anyone else.

That completely ridiculous logic because not all situations are the same ie a truck driver with a trouble criminal past vs someone who committed genocide. That’s like arguing all crimes are equally morally reprehensible and a jaywalker is no morally different than a serial killer

Yeah, that would be completely ridiculous logic-- so it's a good thing I never said anything of the sort, and you're just making this up.

The point that I (and Alcibiades) are making is that moral principles can be applied across any variety of contexts. If you hold Hitler to the same moral standards as any regular person, then so long as those principles state that murder is wrong, you will inevitably conclude that Hitler was a terrible human being. Why would you need to use one type of morality to judge a mass murderer and another to judge an ordinary person? The whole point of having principles is to apply them universally (at least, until they conflict with other principles). 

[Donerail]

There is no rule that commands people to apply a principle they espouse in the context of a particular situation to also apply to "any given situation." That is why we refer to those situations as "different." Recognizing that different situations can call for the application of different principles is a key feature of critical thinking.

There was nothing inherently "different" about the analogous situation that Reckoning presented. He took a set of logic that was applied to one individual and then applied it to another individual, and now you guys are angry that the logic didn't hold up under that other circumstance.

Regardless of how you feel about Reckoning (he and I have our disagreements, to be sure), he is objectively correct in this instance, and trying to obfuscate that by zeroing in on the indelicate language he used does not disprove his point.

There are always differences between different situations — that is why it is an analogy and not simply a restatement. Perhaps you conceptualize genocide as a fundamentally different offense than whatever he accused Floyd of doing, perhaps you apply different standards to political leaders than to private citizens, perhaps you draw some other distinction between the two cases. Whatever it may be, the logic that applies to one individual situation does not have to apply in all circumstances despite meaningful differences — you are the only one who seems to be unable to recognize that different situations can be different!

[John Dule]

There is no rule that commands people to apply a principle they espouse in the context of a particular situation to also apply to "any given situation." That is why we refer to those situations as "different." Recognizing that different situations can call for the application of different principles is a key feature of critical thinking.

There was nothing inherently "different" about the analogous situation that Reckoning presented. He took a set of logic that was applied to one individual and then applied it to another individual, and now you guys are angry that the logic didn't hold up under that other circumstance.

Regardless of how you feel about Reckoning (he and I have our disagreements, to be sure), he is objectively correct in this instance, and trying to obfuscate that by zeroing in on the indelicate language he used does not disprove his point.

There are always differences between different situations — that is why it is an analogy and not simply a restatement. Perhaps you conceptualize genocide as a fundamentally different offense than whatever he accused Floyd of doing, perhaps you apply different standards to political leaders than to private citizens, perhaps you draw some other distinction between the two cases. Whatever it may be, the logic that applies to one individual situation does not have to apply in all circumstances despite meaningful differences — you are the only one who seems to be unable to recognize that different situations can be different!

So if "he didn't do anything to you, and now he's dead" isn't a sufficient reason why someone shouldn't harbor ill will towards a person, then why even bring it up at all? There are innumerable deceased people who didn't harm us personally who we nevertheless feel animosity towards-- serial killers, sex criminals, Bernie Madoff, etc. Disliking dead people you've never met isn't some crazy feeling, and it's certainly not ipso facto proof that the """conservatives""" he was talking about were behaving irrationally. You're wasting your time trying to defend a comment that the original poster evidently put very little thought into.

[Hindsight was 2020]

There is no rule that commands people to apply a principle they espouse in the context of a particular situation to also apply to "any given situation." That is why we refer to those situations as "different." Recognizing that different situations can call for the application of different principles is a key feature of critical thinking.

There was nothing inherently "different" about the analogous situation that Reckoning presented. He took a set of logic that was applied to one individual and then applied it to another individual, and now you guys are angry that the logic didn't hold up under that other circumstance.

Regardless of how you feel about Reckoning (he and I have our disagreements, to be sure), he is objectively correct in this instance, and trying to obfuscate that by zeroing in on the indelicate language he used does not disprove his point.

There are always differences between different situations — that is why it is an analogy and not simply a restatement. Perhaps you conceptualize genocide as a fundamentally different offense than whatever he accused Floyd of doing, perhaps you apply different standards to political leaders than to private citizens, perhaps you draw some other distinction between the two cases. Whatever it may be, the logic that applies to one individual situation does not have to apply in all circumstances despite meaningful differences — you are the only one who seems to be unable to recognize that different situations can be different!

So if "he didn't do anything to you, and now he's dead" isn't a sufficient reason why someone shouldn't harbor ill will towards a person, then why even bring it up at all? There are innumerable deceased people who didn't harm us personally who we nevertheless feel animosity towards-- serial killers, sex criminals, Bernie Madoff, etc. Disliking dead people you've never met isn't some crazy feeling, and it's certainly not ipso facto proof that the """conservatives""" he was talking about were behaving irrationally. You're wasting your time trying to defend a comment that the original poster evidently put very little thought into.

Oh good grief all OP was getting at was how creepy it was that certain conservatives are hating a guy simply because the brutal way he was murdered by a cop sparked a political outrage and that this hatred has gotten so ridiculous that a memorial being wrecked in storm was being attributed to divine intervention. You’re the one who took this straight forward point and blew it up to a ridiculous point along with thereckoning 

[Donerail]

I think it's always worthwhile to defend the right of people to make casual remarks without having to add a caveat for every possible scenario lest they be interrogated by Socrates over here

[John Dule]

I think it's always worthwhile to defend the right of people to make casual remarks without having to add a caveat for every possible scenario lest they be interrogated by Socrates over here

Huh, that's funny, because TheReckoning was making a rather casual retort to an obviously flawed comment before you guys ganged up on him. But I guess I should know better than to expect you to apply your principles equally in different situations.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I think it's always worthwhile to defend the right of people to make casual remarks without having to add a caveat for every possible scenario lest they be interrogated by Socrates over here

Huh, that's funny, because TheReckoning was making a rather casual retort to an obviously flawed comment before you guys ganged up on him. But I guess I should know better than to expect you to apply your principles equally in different situations.

We’ve been going on and on on this morality argument that I forgot to bring this up but no the Reckonings retort was stupid. There are many Jews internationally and locally who were personally affected by what Hitler did be it relatives they lost in the Holocaust or even victims today of the numerous antisemitic hate crimes that have been spiking recently and done by white supremacy groups directly inspired by Hitler. So no the comparison even fails at its most basic level.

[John Dule]

I think it's always worthwhile to defend the right of people to make casual remarks without having to add a caveat for every possible scenario lest they be interrogated by Socrates over here

Huh, that's funny, because TheReckoning was making a rather casual retort to an obviously flawed comment before you guys ganged up on him. But I guess I should know better than to expect you to apply your principles equally in different situations.

We’ve been going on and on on this morality argument that I forgot to bring this up but no the Reckonings retort was stupid. There are many Jews internationally and locally who were personally affected by what Hitler did be it relatives they lost in the Holocaust or even victims today of the numerous antisemitic hate crimes that have been spiking recently and done by white supremacy groups directly inspired by Hitler. So no the comparison even fails at its most basic level.

Sure. That is a critique of his argument that actually addresses the substance of what he was saying (good job on being the first to do this).