site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   4460 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 16, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I would reframe it thus; Libby the Libertarian makes the argument that income redistribution is morally equivalent to sexual redistribution. In both cases, the state is forcibly taking something from those who have it and giving it to people who claim to need it. Libby is making this argument because she is against income redistribution and is appealing to the shared intuition she thinks we all share that sexual redistribution is morally monstrous to convince us that income redistribution is evil as well. That if sexual redistribution is rape, then taxation is theft and welfare is slavery.

However, along comes Ike the Incel, who reads her argument, and agrees that income redistribution and sexual redistribution are isomorphic, but bites the other bullet. If it is morally justified for the government to take a bit from those who have more than enough to help the less fortunate when it comes to dollars, why is not morally justified to do the same when it comes to sex? The capitalist bourgeoisie would not have their wealth but that society provides them with free schooling and roads and property enforcement, so it is appropriate to ask them to chip in to keep society going. Likewise, women would not be able to stop men from having sex with them without police to stop rapes and food stamps to stop them from resorting to prostitution, so it is morally justified to ask them to give back by providing sex to the sexless and breeding the next generation. Hence, government mandated girlfriends.

At this point Ike has taken Libby's argument and reversed it from Modus Tollens into Modus Ponens.

Libby:

  1. If income redistribution is justified, sex redistribution is justified.
  2. Sex redistribution is not justified.
  3. Therefore, income redistribution is not justified.

Ike:

  1. If income redistribution is justified, sex redistribution is justified.
  2. Income redistribution is justified.
  3. Therefore, sexual redistribution is justified.

So that when Libby asks Ike if he is in okay with the government forcing women to have sex with men, given that he is okay with the government stealing from people and forcing them to work without pay, Ike puts on his most manly, chiseled face, and replies "YES".

I think you're right, and I guess that means, technically, one of Libby or Sally is making fallacy of the converse.

It is an easy mistake for me to make since Hanson's formulation appears to be symmetrical (biconditional statement)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats