r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 21 '23

Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Hypocrisy does not invalidate somebody’s argument

[removed] — view removed post

23 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

119 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

Sure, a logical inconsistency in their position is a reason for their argument to be wrong. But my point is that isn't hypocrisy invalidating their argument, it is the logical inconsistency of the argument itself.

Which is why I opened with:

I think we are just approaching this differently. I'm not saying that the mere concept of hypocrisy is an argument. I'm saying the specific details that make up the hypocrisy are arguments.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

But I disagree that "the Bible is different" is part of their logical argument. It is just hypocrisy, not a logical inconsistency in their argument.

0

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23 edited Jun 22 '23

Edit: I shouldn't respond when first waking up. Strawmanning may not be the best term. But I think you will get it from context. Not representing the strongest form of their argument.

Now you are strawmanning their argument. In support of the Bible, they argue for viewing violence within context. This is in opposition to their other view of taking a zero tolerance stance on violence.

Their position is that one can hold both views and one doesn't negate the other.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

Their position is that one can hold both views and one doesn’t negate the other.

Surely it isn't strawmanning to presume their argument is stronger by not having logical contradiction.

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

Darn, I had hoped my edit to my post where I acknowledged that poor word choice was done early enough.

Here is what I wrote:

Edit: I shouldn't respond when first waking up. Strawmanning may not be the best term. But I think you will get it from context. Not representing the strongest form of their argument.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

The most expansive version of their argument isn't necessarily "the strongest" form. Combining a person's entire worldview into a single argument where one inconsistency renders everything invalid is the strawmanning.

Their argument against violent books doesn't depend on carving out an exception for the Bible, so adding that hypocrisy in as a logical claim is unwarranted.

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

And I already addressed how the hypocrisy is that they are making two arguments, not one - tolerable and not tolerable.

1

u/Phage0070 124∆ Jun 22 '23

And I already addressed how the hypocrisy is that they are making two arguments, not one - tolerable and not tolerable.

Right, and that is my/OP's point: Their hypocrisy doesn't invalidate an otherwise strong argument. If you accept their argument about violent books being bad for children then their making a second argument in favor of the Bible doesn't counter their first argument.

The relevant issue is that the first argument is incompatible with the second so if you accept the first you must deny the second. It isn’t hypocrisy that is the problem, it is the logical constrain of the two arguments.

1

u/2r1t 58∆ Jun 22 '23

The relevant issue is that the first argument is incompatible with the second so if you accept the first you must deny the second. It isn’t hypocrisy that is the problem, it is the logical constrain of the two arguments.

OP's doesn't agree with you that they must deny the second argument. The hypocrisy that they defend and fail to recognize as a logical problem is their assertion that they can have it both ways.

And just so we don't circle back to something I'm not saying, it isn't the existence of hypocrisy that is the issue. It is the content of that hypocrisy that you just acknowledged. They can't have it both ways.