Inheriting their worldview from consensus or comfort, never having to earn it through actual thought.

  • Yliaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    This is still a fallacious analogy because it’s clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:

    A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.

    B: You are acting in bad faith

    Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ‘‘good faith’’ discussion, it’s plain common sense that they aren’t.

    If you want to argue in terms of strict ‘‘logic’’, ‘‘faith’’ isn’t even something that would ever ‘‘follow’’ from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ‘‘you’re acting in bad faith’’ is a ‘‘non-sequitur’’ is a meaningless statement. Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.

    • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I’m trying to discuss things in pure logic so as to emotionally unload the reasoning. Bad faith means they are being deceitful. Whether someone says “Hello. You look nice to day.” or “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that? Though the second one is so outlandish, I would assume it’s satire since I assume innocence.

      Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.

      It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.