Man suicides after court ordered Christian drug program tried to ungay him

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Man suicides after court ordered Christian drug program tried to ungay him

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

In addition to the other problems listed with the goon arbitration firm, corporations could just provide free arbitration, denying any argument about affordability. They could even make it a "good PR" move while they bend you over. This would happen as soon as the idea got any traction at all because they know drat well paying for the arbiter is cheaper than going to court.

It's a shame because I like the spirit of the suggestion, but I think court challenges are the way to go since it's probably a legislative nonstarter what with every lobbyist ever and half the legislature probably benefiting from the status quo

# ¿ Nov 9, 2015 20:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 12:36

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

twodot posted:

The whole concept of a technicality doesn't make any sense in discussion to me. You're making some sort of argument or claim, presuming it's properly constructed, that's going to contain some sort of evidence and likely some set of logical deductions stemming from that evidence. I see two scenarios, either your evidence and deductions are relevant to your claim, in which case someone attacking them is a reasonable response, or their not relevant to your claim, in which case why were they written down in the first place?

I understand (though don't really agree with) complaints about technicalities in the legal system, since the legal system will forcibly prevent you from presenting totally valid evidence in certain scenario, but in discussion you have total control over your arguments. If your argument possesses what you perceive to be a technicality that can be attacked, how this anyone's fault other than the person who constructed the weak argument?

The point is that some people ignore the principle of charity in order to correct someone on semantic minutiae, and attack largely irrelevant minor mistakes while ignoring the actual thrust of the argument.

There's nothing wrong with attacking technical details, unless you are just distracting from the issue by intentionally missing the point.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2015 15:38

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

twodot posted:

I think charity pretty clearly suggests assuming interpretation 1, but even then we should still say "He was not a teenager, he was actually 12", because there's no reason to let people believe wrong things. Further, if I don't care about the actual thrust of the argument, I don't see why I should feel obligated to comment any more than "He was actually 12", just to prevent wrong information from spreading.

If you didn't care about the actual thrust of the argument, and were just popping in with a correction, the criticism wouldn't apply to you in the first place. It was about actual stakeholders in the argument attacking sidebar weak points and irrelevant minutae when confronted with counterarguments, intentionally deviating from anything truly relevant to the topic or the obvious thesis of their interlocutor, thereby arguing in bad faith. In other words, ignoring substantial points to quibble about bullshit. A substantive reply that also included a minor factual correction would not come under fire.

I do agree that there is nothing wrong with a spectator interjecting a point of information as you suggest.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2015 02:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Man suicides after court ordered Christian drug program tried to ungay him