Of course it has a name & has been addressed properly rather than in a waffly Twitter thread. Ergo decedo - a subclass of ad hominemhttps://twitter.com/SirDoubtsALot/status/882578449344462854 …
This is not the 'ergo decedo' fallacy. This is a social contract. Tho both can be expressed as 'If you don't like it, leave.'
-
-
And so, at the root of this fallacy, I think, is a false belief about what the social contract is or a dubious idea of what it should be.
-
And often a projection of it onto the other person, 'If you don't like this aspect of society, it's illogical for you to be here.'
-
Even people who want a society opposite in every way to the one they had could answer coherently that they want to change that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yep, I'm with you. My initial response related to the example of demand for a land to become a theocracy. 'Ergo Decedo' works in this...
-
..case, or would you say this doesnt address the problem of why someone wants a theocracy? We won't get into the social contract issue!
-
That's the ethical rather than logical difference. We can say 'We don't want you if you have these values' on ethical not logical grounds.
-
So, its not an example of the fallacy which I was addressing. It doesn't tell us whether a theocracy is good or bad.
-
And it doesn't tell us what would be the logical solution for the person wanting a theocracy in a country which wasn't one.
-
It is the social contract. "We reject theocracy. You want theocracy. Therefore, we don't want you."
-
Thanks for taking the time to go through this. I admire your logical approach to things and have always enjoyed following your account.
-
Very kind. However, this is something I'm just starting to think through (on Twitter as I do) so I'm not clear on what I'm getting at yet
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.