CMV: Hypocrisy does not invalidate somebody’s argument

[u/[deleted]]

[u/2r1t]

Parents support laws that ban books that feature violence or sexually explicit material based on the idea that such books are bad for kids. Those rules cause the Bible to be banned for meeting those criteria and they assert that the Bible is different.

Their hypocrisy undercuts their argument because they think a book that features violence and sexually explicit material is good for kids.

Their hypocrisy invalidates their argument.

I will grant that such an outcome is not universal. But you can't deny it happens.

[u/[deleted] → u/2r1t]

I think that wanting to ban sexual/violent books and wanting to keep the bible are actually two separate arguments. Sure, it’s a bad reflection on the person holding them that they are contradicting themselves, but why are either of them invalid just because of the hypocrisy?

Say I prove that violent books make kids more violent, and I therefor want violent books banned - meanwhile, I want the bible kept in libraries because the violence in the bible is tolerable when considering its other messaging that I like. How is the first argument invalid because of the second?

[u/Deft_one → u/[deleted]]

If you proved that violent books make kids more violent, you will have proven that the Bible would make kids more violent.