• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    What’s with this stupid trend of taking what someone says about one thing, applying it to a different thing, and acting like they’re contradicting themselves? For fucks sakes, assume the person you’re talking to has consistent views. If they say that the death penalty is a solid reason not to consider the US civilized, then it stands to reason that they would feel the same way about Japan, or the United Arab Emirates, or Qatar, or any of the other 50ish countries that still kill people as punishment. What about what they said would imply otherwise???

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s not a trend. I wondered if their opinion was more about America, or a very different country, or a topic like the death penalty. It’s a common conversational pattern with which to highlight the core views of the speaker and identify if those views are tied to the subject (america) or the topic (death penalty.) Japan is generally seen as superior on many topics, but recently was in the news for ruling on an execution, hence was the example I raised.

      They replied that they think Japan is the same, are thus logically consistent, and I was satisfied.

      If they had said Japan IS civilized, even though they too have execution, that would be logically inconsistent and problematic.