The “there is nothing intrinsically wrong about _____” position is a common tactic that Smart Boys on the Internet love to employ when they refuse to address an argument but want to make it look as if they are.
Here’s an example:
A: Gluttony is a sin.
B: You are suggesting that eating is a sin, but eating is not intrinsically sinful. There is nothing wrong about eating in and of itself.
Here’s another one:
A: The birdemic peck mandates are immoral.
B: Are they? I don’t see anything intrinsically immoral about mandating pecks.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand what the Smart Boy is doing.
By widening the scope of the argument from the specific to the general, the Smart Boy aims to obfuscate his unspoken agreement with the original argument and bury it beneath the avalanche of “the larger subject”.
This diversionary tactic puts the other party in the “debate” on the back foot. It draws the person making the argument away from the original argument and propels them toward the much broader but essentially irrelevant "larger subject".
If the other party takes the bait, he will have to address the supposed morality of everything within the scope of the “larger subject”. Instead of arguing the finer points of the specific argument, the other party will inevitably have to argue about the subject in general.
Once the Smart Boy has lured the other party away from the original specific argument, he can liberally apply anything contained within the “general subject” to the debate, thereby further clouding, diluting, and confusing the original specific argument.
For example, instead of permitting the other party to focus on the immorality of the contemporary birdemic peck mandates, the Smart Boy will lead his counterpart to consider the “moral” and successful peck mandates of the past.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
To sum up: The problem with the “there is nothing intrinsically wrong about” tactic lies in its “intrinsic” insincerity.
Instead of sincerely tackling the specific argument, the Smart Boy artfully expands the argument, thereby shifting the focus away from the specific argument and avoiding it entirely.
If the other party engages with the tactic, the Smart Boy can make it look like he has addressed the specific argument without actually having had addressed it at all.
As I have already noted, concealment is a big motivation behind “there is nothing intrinsically wrong about”. The Smart Boy wants to minimize or obscure his tacit agreement with the original argument by diluting it in the broth of the “larger issue”.
Whenever I encounter the tactic, I inevitably consider motivation. Needless to say, the motivation I discern is rarely sincere or good, which is why I tend not to engage with Smart Boys who state that "there is nothing intrinsically wrong about . . ."
Here’s an example:
A: Gluttony is a sin.
B: You are suggesting that eating is a sin, but eating is not intrinsically sinful. There is nothing wrong about eating in and of itself.
Here’s another one:
A: The birdemic peck mandates are immoral.
B: Are they? I don’t see anything intrinsically immoral about mandating pecks.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand what the Smart Boy is doing.
By widening the scope of the argument from the specific to the general, the Smart Boy aims to obfuscate his unspoken agreement with the original argument and bury it beneath the avalanche of “the larger subject”.
This diversionary tactic puts the other party in the “debate” on the back foot. It draws the person making the argument away from the original argument and propels them toward the much broader but essentially irrelevant "larger subject".
If the other party takes the bait, he will have to address the supposed morality of everything within the scope of the “larger subject”. Instead of arguing the finer points of the specific argument, the other party will inevitably have to argue about the subject in general.
Once the Smart Boy has lured the other party away from the original specific argument, he can liberally apply anything contained within the “general subject” to the debate, thereby further clouding, diluting, and confusing the original specific argument.
For example, instead of permitting the other party to focus on the immorality of the contemporary birdemic peck mandates, the Smart Boy will lead his counterpart to consider the “moral” and successful peck mandates of the past.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
To sum up: The problem with the “there is nothing intrinsically wrong about” tactic lies in its “intrinsic” insincerity.
Instead of sincerely tackling the specific argument, the Smart Boy artfully expands the argument, thereby shifting the focus away from the specific argument and avoiding it entirely.
If the other party engages with the tactic, the Smart Boy can make it look like he has addressed the specific argument without actually having had addressed it at all.
As I have already noted, concealment is a big motivation behind “there is nothing intrinsically wrong about”. The Smart Boy wants to minimize or obscure his tacit agreement with the original argument by diluting it in the broth of the “larger issue”.
Whenever I encounter the tactic, I inevitably consider motivation. Needless to say, the motivation I discern is rarely sincere or good, which is why I tend not to engage with Smart Boys who state that "there is nothing intrinsically wrong about . . ."
RSS Feed
