Logic and Ethics: Abstraction, Effect, and Purpose

Probably, luckily categorizing one as lecturing seems to be OK there so it seems a good fit for you.

Still, not everyone can say they live in a bubble, so you've got that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol Note to self, some people don't like to be accused of lecturing.

There's always someone trying to pop my bubble, though!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note to self, some people don't like to be accused.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Popping your bubble, nature of the beast.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Real World

It is at once simple and complicated:

• Person A argues that because of shared responsibility with Person B in causing a given Circumstance, only Person B has any obligation toward said outcome, which in turn bears particular requisite demands, i.e., is problematic.​

Alright, you ready?

• He motions her aside and says, quietly, with tones of exasperation: "Hey, can we talk for a minute? Look, we both made this child. You need to leave support alone and take me off of the file."​

When I ran across it not really so long ago, it was already twenty years old; perhaps not so strangely, I remember the time. There is even a Sciforums version of the issue that is, in itself, at once simple and complicated. Still, the amazing consistency by which the underlying issue fails to change is its own question; this particular iteration is especially bizarre.

Remember, though, we're looking at this as a presupposition. Whatever one wishes to do in order to dress up a justification or sympathy, that is its own thing; we are attending the argument as a presupposition, given a priori; that was its underlying function over twenty years ago.

Additionally, do not overcommit; there remains a plot twist, which I've already mentioned, and it really is easy to fall into the ditch from there.

†​

A secondary consideration, per #17↑: Does an invalid presupposition asserted by a stakeholder utterly invalidate a given larger proposition?