To elaborate, a charge of hypocrisy does absolutely nothing to discredit a statement. It is perfectly possible for a morally inconsistent person to make a valid moral argument. If it weren’t, then no one could make valid moral arguments, because everyone is morally inconsistent.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Further, relative privation (“X doesn’t matter because Y is worse”) is irrational because there is something even worse than Y, ad nauseam. By this logic, you couldn’t consistently protest anything unless you’d first protested everything that’s worse, which would take forever.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@G_S_Bhogal Hey, this is off topic, but could you recommend some books? Summer break is on and it would be great if you could suggest some books that inspired you/you think are important -
Here are a few I enjoyed: David Deutsch – Beginning of Infinity Sebastian Junger – Tribe Sperber & Mercier – Enigma of Reason Richard Wiseman – 59 Seconds David Eagleman - Incognito Yuval Harari – A Brief History of Humankind
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That would be true if the comments were saying that the protestors' protesting of Trump is wrong. But, they're not saying that here. They're simply pointing out the inconsistency. If they were saying "protesting Trump is wrong because you didn't protest the others" I'd agree w/u.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks for sharing this knowledge. But you’re assuming that these commentators are making a technical argument. They’re not. They’re only pointing out the inconsistencies of the protestors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.