slippery slope You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.
He doesn't even believe that corporations should have to provide a list of their ingredients, notwithstanding GMO elements. There's not much of a debate to be had here.
Maybe you should state outright what you think telemann's response "tells" you, rather than pretend that you're not in fact directly insulting him by speaking only circumspectly.
Begging the question, circular logic. blah blah blah. Paternalistic like Oslo suggested.
Yes - this seems roughly where, in Jeff's thinking, we've reached the root level. There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident.
It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head. What's "necessary" on a box of aspirin, say? Doesn't the notion of necessity contemplate some range of intended uses? So don't we have to make some judgment about the relation of a product to its use, as well as its user?
There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident,,,, It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head.
Exactly, and I want 35.00 an hour for my tutoring fees ;) But I appreciate your explanations though, since you are a real expert #yay #enpowerment
A good argument from you would be to explain why GMO labeling is necessary information, thus explaining why introducing other hypothetical labeling information that a "consumer has the right to know" would be unnecessary.
And here's where we can tip the slippery slope right back in your direction. Because what is necessary information, on a product label? Is it the country of origin? Is it the precise ordering of ingredients? Is it the nutrient information? Is there any reason we "need" to know how a new garment of clothing should be laundered? And why is "necessary information" a relevant criterion, anyway?
It would seem to me that the standard to apply here is found by asking: what kinds of information do people want to know, when they are purchasing a product? What kinds of information are relevant to their estimation of value and the assessment and comparison of prices? All that "labeling" needs to accomplish, I think, is to draw out the information that there's a market demand for. When we do that, we accomplish two things: we reduce the transaction costs for making purchases, and we ensure a more efficient matching of supply to demand. If I value a tomato with only tomato genes in it more highly than I value a tomato with pig genes, then it makes sense for labeling to enable me to avoid over-paying for things I don't want, regardless of whether my reasons behind the preference make any sense.
slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
as the basis for labeling GMOs is that "the consumer has a right to know" information that is irrelevant to its experience.
Begging the question, circular logic. blah blah blah. Paternalistic like Oslo suggested. And lots of stomping those Libertarian feet.
It's telling that you instead chose this direction, distracting from the topic in order to advance some false point.
So sorry to ruin your party (not really *wink*).
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yes - this seems roughly where, in Jeff's thinking, we've reached the root level. There's really no way we're going to be able to get him to see that his judgment about what information is "necessary" on a label - to the extent he deigns to allow that mandatory labeling might be appropriate - necessarily incorporates an evaluative framework that he takes to be simply self-evident.
It would take hundreds of words to explain, and all of it would just go over his head. What's "necessary" on a box of aspirin, say? Doesn't the notion of necessity contemplate some range of intended uses? So don't we have to make some judgment about the relation of a product to its use, as well as its user?
Reply
Exactly, and I want 35.00 an hour for my tutoring fees ;) But I appreciate your explanations though, since you are a real expert
#yay #enpowerment
Reply
Reply
And here's where we can tip the slippery slope right back in your direction. Because what is necessary information, on a product label? Is it the country of origin? Is it the precise ordering of ingredients? Is it the nutrient information? Is there any reason we "need" to know how a new garment of clothing should be laundered? And why is "necessary information" a relevant criterion, anyway?
It would seem to me that the standard to apply here is found by asking: what kinds of information do people want to know, when they are purchasing a product? What kinds of information are relevant to their estimation of value and the assessment and comparison of prices? All that "labeling" needs to accomplish, I think, is to draw out the information that there's a market demand for. When we do that, we accomplish two things: we reduce the transaction costs for making purchases, and we ensure a more efficient matching of supply to demand. If I value a tomato with only tomato genes in it more highly than I value a tomato with pig genes, then it makes sense for labeling to enable me to avoid over-paying for things I don't want, regardless of whether my reasons behind the preference make any sense.
Reply
Leave a comment