Reductio ad absurdum can be misused and the conclusions can sometimes be just plain wrong. Like in this case.
Soooooo... you're not saying that Scalia was right to say what he said? I'm very confused as to what your position on this is. :X
Oh, it's simply what I said it was: that he's not using a logical fallacy. If you're curious as to my position on the substance of what he's said, check here. Don't confuse me saying "hey, that criticism of that guy is logically wrong" for me saying "hey, the substance of what that guy said is right."
edit: basically the same thing you said up above--he's pretending like legislation must have one and only one thing backing it up. Once you allow moral feeling+harm, it's ridiculously simple to draw the distinction here.
Best I can tell based on this article... Scalia said that people saying he was comparing homosexuality to animal rape or murder was a logical fallacy... then went on to talk about how we legislate based on morality with murder and that's why we should legislate against homosexuality based on morals as well... which feels like a double loop-the-loop into "wait what?"
The logical fallacy I think he's talking about here is a straw man being attributed to him: he's not saying we should be able to legislate (it's a small but important difference in this context between that and 'we should legislate': remember, the Supreme Court doesn't always decide right or wrong--a lot of times the ruling is that it's up to the legislature to decide either way and the judiciary should stay out of it) both because they're equally bad, he's saying that we should be able to legislate both because moral feelings are a sufficient basis for legislating. Just because the legislation has the same source of legitimacy doesn't mean you think everything legislated on the basis of that source is equally bad.
edit: and of course, in defending himself from that straw man, he does open his argument up to our kinds of criticisms. The more he says "but I don't think murder and homosexuality are equally bad" the tougher time he's going to have attacking anyone's moral feelings-plus-something else argument, arguments that sidestep his reductio. In a sense, he's walking out onto quicksand here, where the more he struggles the deeper he gets.
Reductio ad absurdum can be misused and the conclusions can sometimes be just plain wrong. Like in this case.
GO BACK TO HOGWARTS
Ummm... yeah except that legislating on morality generally requires some kind of societal "harm" associated with it.
Congrats to Scalia for being an idiotic jerk.
He is citing centuries of practice and precedent there. At the end of the day, if you disagree with the popular morality of your state's elected officials, vote them out. That is the American way of things. If more states seek to legalize prostitution like Nevada, they can do so. If individual states want to outlaw it, they can do that as well.
It is a big part of why I find that the 10th amendment has served far more harm than good.
Yes, I am a wizard.
It is only funny in the most terrifyingly depressing sort of way:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-g...
Everyone agrees that "shrimp are an abomination" is absurd, so you take the logic of "the Bible tells me so" and reduce it to an absurd result like 'Red Lobster is den of sin.'
I get the feeling you think that this is absurd, but an Orthodox Jew would not be able to eat there for that reason. Is it still an absurd reduction?
Really? The country whose name was used as a bullying tactic by the idiots at my schools from like 3rd grade on by turning it into ur-a-gay has recognized civil rights and ended discrimination before us?
Disappointed in the US yet again. Still love the country, would really love it if we could get some of our sh*t together alerady.
Everyone agrees that "shrimp are an abomination" is absurd, so you take the logic of "the Bible tells me so" and reduce it to an absurd result like 'Red Lobster is den of sin.'I get the feeling you think that this is absurd, but an Orthodox Jew would not be able to eat there for that reason. Is it still an absurd reduction?
In a good Christian country like 'Murica, yes.
In other words "everybody" = "everybody you are arguing with"; from the article:
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality
Zoophiliacs are all like "Yay!"
and murder.
Zoophiliacs who are not serial killers are all like "ohhh...."
i.e.: it doesn't have to lead to an absurd result for everyone for it to be a reductio. It's finding something else your opponent rejects, and then showing how the logic they use to argue for what you disagree on means they have to accept that other thing they reject. Technically even an Orthodox Jew could use this argument, and then would probably say "but I don't want to write my religion into the laws of my country."
You're right though, the more accurate translation is probably (i.e. in my estimation of what is probable, not because I know for a fact that's the etymological fact) the second one: incongruous or inconsistent, and we should probably use it.
Robear wrote:Everyone agrees that "shrimp are an abomination" is absurd, so you take the logic of "the Bible tells me so" and reduce it to an absurd result like 'Red Lobster is den of sin.'I get the feeling you think that this is absurd, but an Orthodox Jew would not be able to eat there for that reason. Is it still an absurd reduction?
In a good Christian country like 'Murica, yes.
In other words "everybody" = "everybody you are arguing with"; from the article:
Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality
Zoophiliacs are all like "Yay!"
and murder.
Zoophiliacs who are not serial killers are all like "ohhh...."
i.e.: it doesn't have to lead to an absurd result for everyone for it to be a reductio. It's finding something else your opponent rejects, and then showing how the logic they use to argue for what you disagree on means they have to accept that other thing they reject. Technically even an Orthodox Jew could use this argument, and then would probably say "but I don't want to write my religion into the laws of my country."
You're right though, the more accurate translation is probably (i.e. in my estimation of what is probable, not because I know for a fact that's the etymological fact) the second one: incongruous or inconsistent, and we should probably use it.
I have to say, this really made me laugh this morning.
You're right though, the more accurate translation is probably (i.e. in my estimation of what is probable, not because I know for a fact that's the etymological fact) the second one: incongruous or inconsistent, and we should probably use it.
Well, you spent a lot of time distinguishing between reduction, and reduction to the absurd. However, I posted my response to Bloo Driver specifically because he described someone not eating at Red Lobster because they serve shrimp as an "absurd" scenario. Yet it exists in real life. I was trying to show that even in cases where we might think we've found something absurd to us, it's quite possible that it's not actually absurd or even unusual. It was a simple counter-example, in other words.
CheezePavilion wrote:You're right though, the more accurate translation is probably (i.e. in my estimation of what is probable, not because I know for a fact that's the etymological fact) the second one: incongruous or inconsistent, and we should probably use it.
Well, you spent a lot of time distinguishing between reduction, and reduction to the absurd. However, I posted my response to Bloo Driver specifically because he described someone not eating at Red Lobster because they serve shrimp as an "absurd" scenario. Yet it exists in real life. I was trying to show that even in cases where we might think we've found something absurd to us, it's quite possible that it's not actually absurd or even unusual. It was a simple counter-example, in other words.
An absurd extension of that scenario would be to outlaw Red Lobster. Saying it's evil or just boycotting it is actually very reasonable and consistent.
In the case of Red Lobster, its existence does nothing to harm Hasidic Jews. Outlawing Red Lobster because Jews find it morally repugnant to eat shellfish is absurd in a nation where religious freedom is a civil right. I have heard no single compelling or even logically sound argument that successfully shows what kind of harm gay marriage that exists alongside heterosexual marriage could or would do. That something that has a mountain of precedent as a civil right should be limited to heterosexual marriage because a segment (a shrinking segment) of the population finds gay marriage morally repugnant is as absurd as outlawing Red Lobster.
CheezePavilion wrote:You're right though, the more accurate translation is probably (i.e. in my estimation of what is probable, not because I know for a fact that's the etymological fact) the second one: incongruous or inconsistent, and we should probably use it.
Well, you spent a lot of time distinguishing between reduction, and reduction to the absurd. However, I posted my response to Bloo Driver specifically because he described someone not eating at Red Lobster because they serve shrimp as an "absurd" scenario. Yet it exists in real life. I was trying to show that even in cases where we might think we've found something absurd to us, it's quite possible that it's not actually absurd or even unusual. It was a simple counter-example, in other words.
Oh okay--you wound up quoting me instead. That's why I thought you were asking me a question. I think I understand now.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh, but you shall hold their carcasses in abomination.
Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you.
Burn the Red Lobsters!
Leviticus 11:11-13 wrote:And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh, but you shall hold their carcasses in abomination.
Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination to you.
Burn the Red Lobsters!
Huh. Technically Deep Ones should be kashrut, then..
Burn the Red Lobsters!
I favor this plan, not because I keep kosher, but as a matter of good taste and a love of seafood.
Paleocon wrote:Burn the Red Lobsters!
I favor this plan, not because I keep kosher, but as a matter of good taste and a love of seafood.
Hey now... I can't speak to seafood... but their Cajun Chicken Alfredo is heavenly.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:Paleocon wrote:Burn the Red Lobsters!
I favor this plan, not because I keep kosher, but as a matter of good taste and a love of seafood.
Hey now... I can't speak to seafood... but their Cajun Chicken Alfredo is heavenly.
Fun Fact: There are no Red Lobster's in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island. The only state in New England where they currently have restaurants is Connecticut.
I don't think Senator Graham himself understands why he's trying to compare slavery with gay marriage... or is he comparing abolishing slavery with allowing gay marriage? In one scenario, he's a raging hatemonger, in the other scenario, he's supporting gay marriage. It's so rare that you can draw such an easy binary on this, but I'm glad he did it for us this time.
GRAHAM: Can — can I suggest this? Slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. Go watch “Lincoln,” a great movie. The people decided. The question for us is who should decide these things? Should it be a handful of judges or should it be the people themselves? And I come out on the side of the people themselves. Different people will look at it differently. But slavery was outlawed by a Constitutional amendment. If you want to propose a Constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage and it passes, that’s the law of the land.
Ummm... I think the honorable moron Mr. Graham may have missed a few pieces of the movie and history as a whole. Did he really try to use the civil war as an example of trusting the population with equal rights issues (because clearly that worked so well in the south during that time period... not to mention oh I dunno, the next century of institutionalized discrimination)?
And is he really using Lincoln as a support for further discrimination on a different group of people?
Wow... that... that is staggering right there. My mind is trying to work through the plot holes in his statement to even ragequit. Wow. Just... good lord.
Also, yeah, states are failing to keep the gays from marrying, time to rethink the strategy that they were so for before.
I don't think Senator Graham himself understands why he's trying to compare slavery with gay marriage.
I think it is possible Sen. Graham was making a comment about the nature of his own marriage.
Too bad just about no one is surprised by this.
I'm not surprised either, but still disappointed and frustrated by the constant and blatant hypocrisy.
Bloo Driver wrote:I don't think Senator Graham himself understands why he's trying to compare slavery with gay marriage.
I think it is possible Sen. Graham was making a comment about the nature of his own marriage.
Heyooooooooooo!
Phoenix Rev wrote:Too bad just about no one is surprised by this.
I'm not surprised either, but still disappointed and frustrated by the constant and blatant hypocrisy.
Disappointed, irritated to see other nations beat us to the punch on recognizing this as a simple civil rights issue that, yes, people may object to on a variety of reasons (religious, social... even though they're wrong there, etc...) but that doesn't change the fact that legal discrimination against them is still discrimination, even if you think you're doing it for the best of reasons.
I would literally pay $250.00 to drink her tears when SCOTUS rules against her.
....
That makes me a bad person, doesn't it.
Phoenix Rev, you've just uncovered our magic bullet. Homosexualism. Our Religion. If we get all of the gays to join, we could put up numbers that would challenge even the Mormons, percentage-wise.
Phoenix Rev, you've just uncovered our magic bullet. Homosexualism. Our Religion. If we get all of the gays to join, we could put up numbers that would challenge even the Mormons, percentage-wise.
The infrastructure is already in place - high holy days, parades, accepted vestments of prayer, religious icons, and hymnals.
Pages