Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame
Are you trying to convince me that the completion of TMX and Line 3 are likely to improve the situation where LGBTQ youth will be at less risk of being outed against their will?
|
That isn't remotely what he said. He didn't draw any connection between the two things, simply that the benefits of completion of those two pieces of infrastructure outweigh the harm created by rolling back the clock on education policy.
Which, to be fair, I have no idea how to measure, but what else is new when it comes to utilitarianism in practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
The two things you "substitute" are not even remotely as offensive as a museum dedicated to the virtues of Adolf Hitler.
|
If you say so. I would think that changing education policy to indoctrinate kids about the virtues of authoritarianism is worse than a monument to evil that no one has to visit, but whatever. The point is to create a horrible piece of policy that has nothing to do with the economy and ask if he'd stand by his statement in that case. Which, as he now says, he wouldn't.
Further, you still haven't established that building said monument to evil would actually be illegal. I seriously doubt that it would (again, with the caveats I included in my post).
Quote:
|
Your final point, perhaps revealingly, is presented without support (I mean, I was almost convinced by the italics, but not quite).
|
There was no attempt to substitute his position for a position he did not hold, or attribute to him a view that he would reject. The attempt was to demonstrate that the position he
did hold would have absurd consequences, and to ask him to either endorse or reject those consequences. My premises can then be attacked (in the manner you did, for example, though apparently without success).
In other words, there is a huge difference between trying to attribute views to someone that they don't actually hold, and trying to show that views they DO hold would have bad outcomes.