Originally posted by MaxVel
View Post
I argued that (a) Tassman's behaviour is inconsistent with his stated position on morality (ergo his position is false, since he himself doesn't or can't live it out);
You did say, "Why do you waste your, and more importantly our, time, spouting off about things that your own viewpoint insists are mere abstractions of passing taste and fashion?"
But you didn't back up your claim that his viewpoint insists that morals "are mere abstractions of passing taste and fashion." I'd say this is a straw man.
Morals don't change overnight; it takes generations.
(b) gave an example of this pattern of self-contradiction in a related area of philosophy; (c) pointed out that someone who repeatedly contradicts themselves is likely not the most rational (hence their positions should be regarded with some skepticism)
Comment