All of Juan Carlos Pérez's Comments + Replies

I'd say you're being uncharitable to both views.

The first view: "Everyone should be treated the same". Having different laws for different races or ethnicities, is more unfair than treating everyone the same. Attempts to keep racial discrimination result in people being discriminated against and killed. Even if perfect equality were not achievable, I think a more equal society is preferable to a less equal one, unless there are good things that only came with a less equal one.

The second view: "It's bad to hurt people's feelings", I'd defend with some cavea... (read more)

This is "TheRationalist"'s only post on this forum. It is very short; they claim to "tear down" two substantial normative views, but allot each only a single brief paragraph. They define no ambiguous terms and cite no sources for their empirical claims. The claims being made are already very well-understood, and they bring no new insights to the table. If this person is not simply a troll, then they have not yet learned to make charitable arguments. Engaging charitably with this "argument" is cooperating with a defector. If I moderated here, I would immediately terminate this person's account with the expectation that if they make an alt, they will put more effort into their next attempt. I am very supportive of racists studying rationality (it's a great way to challenge your beliefs!) but not of allowing them to lower the mean quality of conversation.

Are you sure of 'modus ponus' being a name for the third rule of inference? I have seen a few names for it:

  • Modus ponens.
  • Modus ponendo ponens.
  • Law of detachment.