caffn8me
Well-known member
Quote:
Your entire logic was based on the premise that because something was policy it couldn't be argued with. That is utterly wrong. Of course you can argue with policies. Politicians do it all the time. If there was never any argument over policy, why would you need to change the government periodically?
Of course, there are places where it may be inadvisable to argue against policy - places like China, Burma, North Korea and even parts of the former Soviet Union.
Yes, I used an extreme example to demonstrate that but I'm certainly not wrong to show the flaw in your logic. Go find yourself a graduate philosopher and ask them. To find out what logic means see here.
What I did by comparing stoning in Iran to corporate policy was a technique known as reductio ad absurdem (Latin for 'reduction to the absurd') - see here
Your entire logic was based on the premise that because something was policy it couldn't be argued with. That is utterly wrong. Of course you can argue with policies. Politicians do it all the time. If there was never any argument over policy, why would you need to change the government periodically?
Of course, there are places where it may be inadvisable to argue against policy - places like China, Burma, North Korea and even parts of the former Soviet Union.
Yes, I used an extreme example to demonstrate that but I'm certainly not wrong to show the flaw in your logic. Go find yourself a graduate philosopher and ask them. To find out what logic means see here.
What I did by comparing stoning in Iran to corporate policy was a technique known as reductio ad absurdem (Latin for 'reduction to the absurd') - see here