Simple. It's a dullard's way of trying to make a point when he disagrees but can't say why: point out some potential for subjectivity and then pretend he's made a point when in fact all he's shown is that he's over his head.
Let me flesh this out with an example. I am against concentrated wealth. I don't think anyone should have the kind …
Simple. It's a dullard's way of trying to make a point when he disagrees but can't say why: point out some potential for subjectivity and then pretend he's made a point when in fact all he's shown is that he's over his head.
Let me flesh this out with an example. I am against concentrated wealth. I don't think anyone should have the kind of money that Bill Gates or Elon Musk have. So I say, " think the tax code should unapologetically set out to limit wealth concentration."
I don't have a number at hand, off the cuff I would say a billion is more than anyone needs.
So some little smarty who used to wear out "envy" and "class warfare" pipes up and boldly questions:
"but *who gets to decide* how much is too much?"
As if the potential arbitrariness of pegging a number invalidates the whole point that wealth is power, and power is supposed to be elected. As if we could never come up with a reasonable figure and adjust it over time.
"Who gets to decide" is not an argument. It's a minor consideration.
Thanks for the kind words but in some places I could already be fined or fired for refusing to use the nonbinary "they." A judge would be unsympathetic about the grammar.
Simple. It's a dullard's way of trying to make a point when he disagrees but can't say why: point out some potential for subjectivity and then pretend he's made a point when in fact all he's shown is that he's over his head.
Let me flesh this out with an example. I am against concentrated wealth. I don't think anyone should have the kind of money that Bill Gates or Elon Musk have. So I say, " think the tax code should unapologetically set out to limit wealth concentration."
I don't have a number at hand, off the cuff I would say a billion is more than anyone needs.
So some little smarty who used to wear out "envy" and "class warfare" pipes up and boldly questions:
"but *who gets to decide* how much is too much?"
As if the potential arbitrariness of pegging a number invalidates the whole point that wealth is power, and power is supposed to be elected. As if we could never come up with a reasonable figure and adjust it over time.
"Who gets to decide" is not an argument. It's a minor consideration.
Thanks for the kind words but in some places I could already be fined or fired for refusing to use the nonbinary "they." A judge would be unsympathetic about the grammar.
Ah! So it is as it pertains to disingenuous argumentum, rather than a generalized concept where it does matter.
Of course there are cases where it matters, though I can't come up with one for some reason. But the idea is used to end debates, not to further them.
As I get older I find this deflection increasingly irritating.