ArisKatsaris comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

157 Post author: Yvain 27 August 2012 03:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1742)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 29 August 2012 11:26:36AM 1 point [-]

If you can think of left-wing WAITWs that are as well-known and catchy as "abortion is murder!", I will happily edit the post to include them

How about "Gay rights are equal rights"?

Comment author: pianoforte611 30 August 2012 01:39:51AM 0 points [-]

Interesting example. I'm trying to figure out how it fulfills the second criteria for the WAITW namely "as though it also had those features even though it doesn't"

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 30 August 2012 10:09:18AM 0 points [-]

The archetypical example of a struggle for equal rights has been identical political enfranchisement (e.g. the suffragette movement) or identical legal equality (equal right to property, etc) on an individual level.

Things like gay marriage or adoption rights don't fit those archetypical examples -- hence the rather silly counter-argument by its opponents that "gays are already allowed to marry - they're allowed to marry people of the opposite gender."

I'm saying all this as a huge supporter of gay rights, btw.

Comment author: pianoforte611 30 August 2012 08:12:52PM 0 points [-]

Ah I see now, thanks. I don't its nearly as common as "abortion is murder" though. Actually I'm quite embarrassed that I can't think of any liberal examples of the worst argument in the world with regard to social issues that people actually use regularly. I don't like any that I've seen so far.

Comment author: thomblake 30 August 2012 02:47:38PM 0 points [-]

The archetypical example of a struggle for equal rights has been identical political enfranchisement (e.g. the suffragette movement) or identical legal equality (equal right to property, etc) on an individual level.

It's not as different as it might seem. Initially, only property owners could vote, and so only letting men vote was effectively "one vote per household". With the "sensible" assumption that everyone is married and truthful with their spouses, giving votes to both spouses means either one candidate gets two votes, or they vote for different people and thus might as well have stayed home. Since the only difference there is that the folks counting the votes would have to do twice as much work (since spouses usually agree about everything), it would not be helpful to give every household 2 votes instead. People could have argued at the time (I'm not sure whether they actually did) that women do have the right to vote - the husband is voting for both of them (this is of course complicated by the fact that women could not own property).

Equal right to property works similarly - unmarried women could own property, but married women could not.