[stavros]

I don't have an opinion, but I'll say that the argument form of "no normal person wants to do X; if you want to do X, there's something wrong with you" should be beneath us.

I hope we know better than casual No True Scotsman arguments.

[recuter]

I'd just like to thank you, as a (cannibal) resident of Nukuhiva, for respecting my culture. Everything is just a matter of perspective after all, it is good to keep an open mind.

[stavros]

I guess maybe I should adjust the standard of discourse I expect on HN.

[terryf]

The other guy is right. Moral relativism is not the way.

There are limits to acceptance as you imply in your comment.

Freedom is measurable and matters.

How long is the list of things that you can do for which the state can repress you in Saudi Arabia? How long is the list in Belgium?

Is there a fair trial process?

Are there equal rights to people?

Yes, some people want to cover their faces and that is fine. Some others don't. That should be fine as well.

[HDThoreaun]

Moral realism is not the way. There is absolutely no reason to believe in universal right and wrong. Might make you feel good but that doesn’t make it true

[terryf]

You sure seem to be absolute in that belief ;)

[HDThoreaun]

I try to stay epistemically humble. As far as meta-ethics go I tend to lean toward proving a positive as opposed to a negative which is why I am a relativist in the face of no proof.

[stavros]

No, both of you are strawmanning my argument. I said "No True Scotsman isn't a valid argument" and you got "moral relativism is OK" from that.

There's a vast difference between "saying 'no sane person wants to do X, therefore if you want to do X, you're insane' is wrong" and "everything is morally OK".

[recuter]

So, presumably there is a line after all. I'm not sure what we are disagreeing with other than palatable phrasing.

I submit that cannibalism is somewhere over the line and I also agree that 'no sane person would want to be eaten alive' could be considered unfortunate phrasing. But how would you phrase it better?

[stavros]

It's not about whether there's a line or not, it's about the phrasing setting the goalposts in such a way that it's a circular argument that can't be argued against. Nobody can say anything because your argument is "if you want to do this, you're bad, because you want to do this".

A better argument would be "this is bad because it doesn't respect the autonomy of women", instead of "this is bad because bad people do it, and the people who do it are bad because they do it".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[bitcharmer]

This refers to your comments more than others. There's a lot of mental gymnastics you're engaging in.

[akudha]

Why don’t you have an opinion? They’re treating women so bad, their policies are stuck in 1200s, and we are in 2022. Does that not bother you at least a bit?

Honest question about the argument - how would you phrase it (I wrote that comment)?

[stavros]

I wouldn't make that argument that way, I'd say I don't like what they're doing. It's not useful to say "no normal being would do that", given that millions of "normal" human beings do it.

It makes it sound like they're inhuman monsters and that we'd never do that. The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would, just like we eat meat.

[akudha]

Ok, fair enough.

The truth is, if you and I were raised there, we probably would

But that is kinda what I said though, isn’t it?

Anyway, I wasn’t trying to make them sound like monsters (except the rulers, they sure are).

I’ll try to word things better, next time.

[stavros]

It's not so much about the wording, it's about this line of argumentation separating us from them. I especially dislike this line of thinking when thinking about Nazi Germany and the atrocities there, because people tend to think "no sane person would do that, and we're sane, so we won't do it".

Instead, a much better line of thinking is "normal people can do this, under specific circumstances, so we should be very careful not to fall into the same trap ourselves".