Opinion Arguments you think are right for the wrong reasons

[Islam Imamate]

Title is pretty self explanatory, what are some arguments that you agree with in their conclusions but not in the reasoning used to get there?

One for me is related to gun rights. I don't believe an armed society is a polite society, actually I don't think gun ownership makes a huge difference either way when it comes to violent crime compared to other factors like wealth inequality or population density. That said, I still generally support gun rights.

Another is related to free speech. There's this idea that free speech allows us to have a so called marketplace of ideas where ideas get tested against one another with the best ones coming out on top. I don't agree with that, I think people as a collective are not necessarily going to gravitate towards the best ideas even if they have free access to them. Just look at the internet, its used mostly for social media and porn despite the vast access to information it allows us. I don't think that the quality of an idea or argument in the way that we normally think of is what determines its successful spread and we can see that in how far and fast certain falsehoods spread.

That said, I still support free speech for the most part because I don't trust the government to be the arbiter of what is and isn't accepted speech. To me that has a greater potential for abuse when compared to allowing people to be stupid out loud and in public.

 

[HereticBD]

I think "free speech" is getting misconstrued as something it's not.

No, "free speech" does not protect you from being fired for saying something stupid.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

"Hate speech is not free speech".

I get what they are saying. It's not good to hate people and could potentially lead to violence. What is the alternative though? Do you really want authoritarianism? Do you want someone that makes laws that says you can't say certain things? Who should have that kind of power? What counts as hate speech?

As you can imagine, defining hate speech would get really messy and ironically, could lead you to a situation where what had noble intentions, leads to bigotry and oppression. For instance, imagine the Nazis coming to power and you couldn't say anything about them or anything positive about Jews because it could be considered hate speech. It's a road you don't want to go down. Look at all of the vile hatred (some deserved) that Trump gets on Twitter. Certainly that would be labeled "hate speech" but is being used by the same people that are anti-freedom of speech.

It's best to simply have free speech. If someone says something you don't like, even if it's racist or hateful, you get to use YOUR free speech to drown out those messages. It can be messy but the alternative of not having free speech is far, far worse.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

"Hate speech is not free speech".

I get what they are saying. It's not good to hate people and could potentially lead to violence. What is the alternative though? Do you really want authoritarianism? Do you want someone that makes laws that says you can't say certain things? Who should have that kind of power? What counts as hate speech?

As you can imagine, defining hate speech would get really messy and ironically, could lead you to a situation where what had noble intentions, leads to bigotry and oppression. For instance, imagine the Nazis coming to power and you couldn't say anything about them or anything positive about Jews because it could be considered hate speech. It's a road you don't want to go down. Look at all of the vile hatred (some deserved) that Trump gets on Twitter. Certainly that would be labeled "hate speech" but is being used by the same people that are anti-freedom of speech.

It's best to simply have free speech. If someone says something you don't like, even if it's racist or hateful, you get to use YOUR free speech to drown out those messages. It can be messy but the alternative of not having free speech is far, far worse.

Hate Speech is Free Speech, at least in America, you just can't incite to violence. I don't agree with having 100% Free Speech, there has to be limits.

 

[Prefect]

Wealth redistribution is necessary not due to the idea that everyone should be equal but the lack of the ability to plan longterm, lack of ability to pursue opportunities, health cost, loss of motivation, increased crime, and general problems make a good argument even to the wealthy. It cost too much to have too much of a gap between rich and poor.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Sterilization and forced contraception is a good thing...

Some people shouldn't have children

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Sterilization and forced contraception is a good thing...

Some people shouldn't have children

Forced constipation is just more proof that the laxative lobbyist are a powerful force in DC politics.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Wealth redistribution is necessary not due to the idea that everyone should be equal but the lack of the ability to plan longterm, lack of ability to pursue opportunities, health cost, loss of motivation, increased crime, and general make a good argument even to the wealthy. It cost too much to have too much of a gap between rich and poor.

That's a great one and I agree. Obviously at some point reducing inequality is going to have diminishing returns and will create its problems. People are different after all and so we should expect different outcomes including some being poor and some rich. But when the gap is too large it creates social ills like the one you mentioned.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Gun rights are useful to take down an oppressive government.
I don't think it makes much of a difference, when a country is in a state of revolution guns will find it way through despite being illegal. I also do not think the guns you can buy as a civilian would be that useful in taking down any government, much less a powerful one, and it's not just the USA. Rebels, terrorists if you may, in Syria have everything a US civilian could only dream of, they have full auto rifles, ATGMs, MANPADS, tanks and even some chemical weapons (ISIS had mustard gas). They still got crushed by the government, mostly due to logistics.
I still support gun rights.

 

[Trotsky]

The no-fly list debate is a good example of this imo. The Republicans were against it very obviously on the basis of their firearm interests, not in the interests of due process (which they otherwise loath) for suspected terrorists. Meanwhile, Democrats had benevolent reasons for wanting the no-fly list (preventing mass violence by terrorists on FBI watch lists), but it was clearly a problem with due process.

So the Republicans were right for the wrong reasons, and the Democrats were wrong for the right reasons.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Gun rights are useful to take down an oppressive government.
I don't think it makes much of a difference, when a country is in a state of revolution guns will find it way through despite being illegal. I also do not think the guns you can buy as a civilian would be that useful in taking down any government, much less a powerful one, and it's not just the USA. Rebels, terrorists if you may, in Syria have everything a US civilian could only dream of, they have full auto rifles, ATGMs, MANPADS, tanks and even some chemical weapons (ISIS had mustard gas). They still got crushed by the government, mostly due to logistics.
I still support gun rights.

ISIS is like less than 1% of the population. Notice when it was the Vietcong, and a vast majority of the population, it didn't work out the same. Afganistan was closer to 25% of the population, and we will eventually leave, and the Taliban will win. Terrain also really matters. The US is a logistical nightmare.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'd phrase it a little differently, but one that comes up for me is campaign finance. I think that the common arguments people put forth to try to limit political donations are all really bad. For one thing, people are under the misconception that the beneficiaries of the system are the people who spend campaign donations (politicians) rather than the people who get the money (consultants, advertising firms, and the media). For another, it doesn't actually influence politicians' positions on issues. But it still should be limited because it's a zero-sum game, meaning that both parties (in the sense of participants in the game) have incentive to spend (and thus raise) more as individuals but both have an incentive to limit spending collectively. That's exactly the kind of situation that calls for some coordinator (the gov't in this case) to intervene to prevent waste.

I'm also pretty undecided on the benefits of higher education to the recipients, but I think that funding higher education is good because of the benefits of the research and the effects that can have to revitalize towns and cause clusters of skilled workers. So I think investment in colleges is a good idea but not for the reason that most people think it is.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Gun rights are useful to take down an oppressive government.
I don't think it makes much of a difference, when a country is in a state of revolution guns will find it way through despite being illegal. I also do not think the guns you can buy as a civilian would be that useful in taking down any government, much less a powerful one, and it's not just the USA. Rebels, terrorists if you may, in Syria have everything a US civilian could only dream of, they have full auto rifles, ATGMs, MANPADS, tanks and even some chemical weapons (ISIS had mustard gas). They still got crushed by the government, mostly due to logistics.
I still support gun rights.

I think guns are important for resisting tyranny but at a smaller scale. At the scale you're talking about, all out rebellion, then yeah gun laws won't matter for the reasons you mentioned.

But if we're talking about a rogue cop out to abuse your rights and threaten you a gun can make all the difference. Not a perfect solution there either, you could always end up being the one who gets shot or you get convicted later. But I'd like to have the option and indeed citizens have killed cops in self defense and been acquitted in the US.

The no-fly list debate is a good example of this imo. The Republicans were against it very obviously on the basis of their firearm interests, not in the interests of due process (which they otherwise loath) for suspected terrorists. Meanwhile, Democrats had benevolent reasons for wanting the no-fly list (preventing mass violence by terrorists on FBI watch lists), but it was clearly a problem with due process.

So the Republicans were right for the wrong reasons, and the Democrats were wrong for the right reasons.

That's another good one. In general when it comes to guns IMO the Dems are more likely to be wrong for the right reasons and though I agree with right wingers on guns for the most part sometimes they put forth some terrible arguments in favor of gun rights.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

ISIS is like less than 1% of the population. Notice when it was the Vietcong, and a vast majority of the population, it didn't work out the same. Afganistan was closer to 25% of the population, and we will eventually leave, and the Taliban will win. Terrain also really matters. The US is a logistical nightmare.

I don't mean ISIS. There are the other rebels. And in the case of the Taliban, I don't think Afghanistan had a 2nd amendment, they got it from smugglers in Pakistan.

For one thing, people are under the misconception that the beneficiaries of the system are the people who spend campaign donations (politicians) rather than the people who get the money (consultants, advertising firms, and the media). For another, it doesn't actually influence politicians' positions on issues.

Don't the politicians benefit by having a higher chance of winning? And don't they mold their positions in order to gain that funding in the first place?

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

But if we're talking about a rogue cop out to abuse your rights and threaten you a gun can make all the difference. Not a perfect solution there either, you could always end up being the one who gets shot or you get convicted later. But I'd like to have the option and indeed citizens have killed cops in self defense and been acquitted in the US.

That's true but it's also really rare and even in many self defense situations you can get into legal problems that might be worse than getting mugged or burglarized. Like that thread a while back of the two shirtless fatties killing the raging dude because of the mattress.
Anyway, the argument is mostly about insurrection against the government, not self defense. I think that it can help a little, a gun is always useful and americans, for example, are better shots than arabs in part due to a gun culture and it even helps when recruiting people into the military.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't the politicians benefit by having a higher chance of winning? And don't they mold their positions in order to gain that funding in the first place?

It's zero sum. And no, politicians don't mold positions in order to get funding for campaigns.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

It's zero sum. And no, politicians don't mold positions in order to get funding for campaigns.

That makes sense in the US I guess, not as much in proportional systems because if you don't get money you will not be known in a multiparty system and lose.

3am here, disregard my incoherence, I will see something better tomorrow.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I don't mean ISIS. There are the other rebels. And in the case of the Taliban, I don't think Afghanistan had a 2nd amendment, they got it from smugglers in Pakistan.


Don't the politicians benefit by having a higher chance of winning? And don't they mold their positions in order to gain that funding in the first place?

It's my understanding that throughout the ME, it is a cultural thing for each household to have an AK.

 

[Fawlty]

Love the thread idea. I'm always interested when people are right for the wrong reasons, or when they are wrong for better reasons than their correct opponents. It makes a nice gap that begs to be bridged and creates some of the best opportunities for learning and changing.

One that jumps out to me all the time is supporting free but deplorable speech, for some odd reason like "at least it's out in the open instead of concealed," or "all ideas should compete in the marketplace and the best will win," or "sunlight is the best disinfectant," or "exposing people to bad ideas will make them stronger," and other stupid horseshit. Those are all wrong because they are rationalizing the exposure of good people to bad ideas, and promote a naive (at best) understanding of how people - especially impressionable people - work. One of this idea's bastard children is the celebration of non-fatal bullying and abuse as "character building," which should have been mostly squashed in popular culture by the turn of the century but for the Internet.

No, no, no, no, and fuck no. Terrible ideas are a liability. Exposure to influential but damaging speech is bad. It doesn't make fewer people believe it. It makes more people believe it. Giving it a platform alongside legitimate, decent ideas accelerates the deplorable's influence, helps them reach wider audiences like teens and marks, and once that ball gets rolling it always comes down to how charismatic the deplorable person is, and how far they get before decent people put up enough of a fight to defeat it or they burn out their audience like the religious fevers in 19th century New York, but there is always damage done (Mormons lulz).

The crazy, loud racist fuck in the bar can become your leader. It happens. Detestable-but-free speech is one where we have to be right, and for the right reasons. It should be discouraged in public, it should be boycotted in the marketplace, it should be denied the sunny spot, and warned against to vulnerable people.

And here's something I hope will help clarify some of these situations. Look at the advocates for the "free speech rights" of the Alex Joneses (or for a sharper example if you're older, the David Dukes). The advocates to watch out for are the ones who are always whining about their rights but who never seem to find the energy to condemn their ideas, or who do so merely as a token gesture. It's very common around here if you're looking for it. These are the ones who want the lunatics to slip through and to damage your culture, to sow chaos and hatred, and sometimes for no other reason than their own boredom and dissatisfaction. They aren't the ACLU, in any case. They don't give a shit about learning and the free expression of ideas. They would have you locked up for yours, without batting an eye, if only some charismatic person would come along and give them a nice uniform and a sense of pride.

Thoughts cannot and should not be crimes, and we think to at least a high degree in language, and the utterance of those thoughts cannot be crimes. Only a very few select usages of speech can even be considered criminal acts, and only indirectly and after the fact. But we have to be aware that the words of the monsters and the heroes all come from the same place.

 

[InternetHero]

That President Bill Clinton's depredations and lies give some serious cover to President Trump's behavior.

The outcome is wrong in that one should not excuse the other, but rather all the dishonesty, the detonation of common decency, and character assassinations galore by both camps; all these should be expunged from both Party's, and the greater American culture.

That's not going to happen for a number of reasons, but should.