True enough, but the popularity of said arguments means that you need an effective counter. “Grow Up” isn’t going to get a lot of traction. Explaining that the quest for fairness leads to even more unfairness is what you need to do.
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.