Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9734961" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Let us see.Did [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER] say that there should never be choices where there isn't an obvious, correct choice? Did they say that absolutely all situations ever must be so ambiguous, so utterly intractable, that it's impossible for anyone to even begin to claim that it has one solution?Because unless they did, your argument has no force: if they have allowed for the possibility that some decisions are like that, and other decisions aren't, then bringing up any number of finite examples of choices with singular, clear, obvious answers does nothing to affect what they're arguing about.And guess what? They did, in fact, very specifically make a "some choices" kind of argument, not an "all choices" kind of argument, whereas the person they were responding to functionally did (relegating non-simple, non-obvious choices to a tiny, rare, irrelevant exception):The fact that there are complicated and nuanced situations that do not have one obvious correct solution does not, in any way, imply that that is the only kind of situation that can exist.That's like hearing "I want there to be red cars" and saying "OH SO YOU'RE GONNA TAKE AWAY ALL THE BLUE CARS THEN???" No. Trivially obviously not. They just want there to be red cars, and the person they were arguing against had said, "All cars are blue, or so close to all cars that we can just not care about ever making any color other than blue."You are manufacturing an all-or-nothing argument strawman...out of someone's attempt to oppose an actual, expressly articulated (functionally-)all-or-nothing argument.</blockquote>

Verification