Question

...
Alex Hosking

I can dismiss you "because it's easy".

I was pointing out that a road has 99% non-compliance with the speed limit, I then went into detail about how and why it's the road design and the conditions at the time that dictate traffic speeds. And I go into detail about how driving is a system 1 activity etc. There seem to be a lot more keyboard warriors online who will claim to not be in that 99%.
Their response was basically "So what" No amount of non-compliance to them could seen as be indicative of the speed limit being wrong, I know this is also an appeal to the law.
And despite the non-compliance stats they will claim that obeying the speed limit is "easy".
I think this is a fallacy because driving 2mph to park is in a literal sense easy but so is walking sideways, something being easy initially doesn't always make it intuitive to sustain over long periods, which clearly it isn't which is explained better in the video I link to.

asked on Thursday, Jun 15, 2023 06:52:29 AM by Alex Hosking

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

I don't get this really. Perhaps you can phrase it as an argument...

premise 1

premise 2

conclusion

posted on Thursday, Jun 15, 2023 07:11:40 AM
...
0
Alex Hosking writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I'm saying that yes, going 20mph is easy, but sustaining it over long periods is unintuitive and therefore not easy, the same as walking sideways would be "easy" but very unintuitive if you were told to do it for 20 miles, so the fact that walking sideways is easy is irrelevant.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jun 15, 2023 07:35:00 AM
...
2
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Alex Hosking]

Sure that makes sense. Perhaps this is similar:

Holding one's breath is easy. Therefore, it is easy to hold one's breath for hours.

This would be a classic non sequitur . Adding the element of time clearly matters in terms of what is easy or not.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jun 15, 2023 07:56:11 AM
...
0
Alex Hosking writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I was starting to think it was false equivalence fallacy.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 16, 2023 08:52:54 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers