Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pm
Maybe i'm missing something that you could clarify, but your rationale here doesn't make any sense.
Can you answer my questions, so I can understand where your confusion lies?
I suspect it lies in a misunderstanding of what "validity" means in logic.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:44 pm
P1. Bob is using an arbitrary excuse
P2. Some people who use arbitrary excuses are contradicting themselves
So what is the appropriate conclusion?
1. C. Therefore Bob is contradicting himself
2. C. Therefore Bob may or may not be contradicting himself (we don't have enough information to determine this)
I need to know what you think the answer to this question is.
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:44 pmP1. Bob is a transvestite
P2. Some transvestites are gay
C. Therefore Bob is gay.
We know that argument is invalid. What if Bob is actually gay? Does that make it valid in your view?
Likewise, please answer this question.
Did you read the article I linked you to here?
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmIt doesn't matter if they actually
realise that they believe that sometimes arbitrary justifications are ok and sometimes they are not.
If they believe sometimes arbitrary justifications are OK and sometimes they are not, they are employing a double standard, they are not contradicting themselves.
A double standard is not a logical contradiction. Do you understand and agree that these are different things?
Please answer that question so I can see where the misunderstanding here lies.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmmost of the time they are either stating completely irrational explanations as you have listed that they would never accept in any other context, or if used to justify injustice to them or their group, or they are being intellectually dishonest.
This is a double standard.
I said before if the first half of nameTheTrait were this:
P1 - Humans are of moral value
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we hold a double standard by deeming animals valueless
It would probably be valid.
But that's not the wording.
A logical contradiction is different from a double standard.
Do you understand how?
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmIt is irrelevant as to whether they can comprehend the logic or not, the fact remains that they are contradicting themselves, regardless of their comprehension.
IF they think double standards are ALWAYS wrong, then they are probably contradicting themselves.
IF they think double standards are only wrong for other people, but OK for themselves, then they are not contradicting themselves.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmThey wouldn't except someone saying "us" as in white people, anyone else is not of moral value. And when questioned about it they just say "meh, just my belief". So they can't appeal to this rationale when justifying something just as arbitrary.
Of course they can: BY EMPLOYING A DOUBLE STANDARD. This is not a logical contradiction.
If they agree with an additional premise: "P3 - Double standards are ALWAYS wrong" THEN and only then is it demonstrated that they are contradicting themselves.
If they only believe double standards are wrong for other people but not for themselves, then there's no contradiction.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmWho cares whether they acknowledge it or not? I think you are confusing the goal post here.
If you want to prove anything, you need more information.
You're confusing the purpose of a logical argument here. Logic is used to prove propositions. If you have failed to prove something, the logical argument has failed in being logical.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmYou haven't demonstrated at all how only some people who use arbitrary excuses are appealing to a true contradiction. The examples you have given (2,3 and 4) that you believe show people are not contradicting themselves by appealing to an arbitrary distinction, are merely based on what those individuals subjectively believe.
Yes, it's based on their subjective beliefs. ...That's pretty much what arbitrary is.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmHowever, from an objectively logical position it is clear that all those examples are not rationale or logical justifications for using arbitrary distinctions,
Arbitrary distinctions don't have to be justified: if they were justified they would no longer be arbitrary.
Nothing in #NameTheTrait says the trait has to be rationally justified; it can be an arbitrary one.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmtherefore they are ALWAYS contradicting themselves if they wouldn't accept arbitrary distinctions as justifications in other contexts.
False. They are always employing a double standard. This is not a contradiction unless they agree with a
"P3- Double standards are ALWAYS wrong".
Somebody CAN believe it's wrong for others to hold double standards and believe it's right for themselves to do it.
It's a completely ridiculous belief, but there has been no logical contradiction demonstrated there.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmThey cannot appeal to an arbitrary distinction of moral value when it suits them, and at the same time reject an arbitrary distinction of moral value in another context or when it is detrimental to them,
Of course they can, it's called using a double standard.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmwithout creating a contradiction within their belief in the justification of using arbitrary distinctions of moral value.
They believe it's OK for them to do it, but not OK for others. There is no contradiction with that belief. Again, that's a double standard, not a contradiction.
Daz wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:58 pmThey can only allude this contradiction if they bite the bullet and say that, yes arbitrary justifications of moral value are ok in all contexts dependent on the subjective interpretation (which creates an extremely problematic set of circumstances as we know).
That is the only way they can avoid it without appealing to a double standard.
There are two ways to avoid it:
1. Appeal to a double standard
2. Accept others doing it to them (as you said), which arguably invalidates their own assertions of moral value
So, in fact, people have three options when answering #NameTheTrait:
1. Logical contradiction
2. Appeal to a double standard which they accept for themselves only
3. Reject the double standard and accept arbitrary reasons for others too, which has those consequences as you say which nobody would accept and might contradict P1.
#NameTheTrait claims that 1 is the only possible outcome. That is incorrect, since arbitrary answers obviously work too. Thus #NameTheTrait is logically invalid.
If you made a couple tweaks to #NameTheTrait you could make it logically valid. For example, add the P3 I mentioned.