Comment by fourside
5 hours ago
I don’t think the parent comment was trying to equate the two, but rather pushing the argument to its logical extreme to test show that the reasoning doesn’t hold consistently across cases. Whether they made a convincing argument is separate.
I literally was trying to equate the two.
Taking it to a logical extreme is good practice for thinking from first principles, but always pair it up with going to the logical extreme in the other direction. That might look something like: "would you really eat at a restaurant owned by a habitual jaywalker?".
Except pushing it to the logical extreme is what makes it wrong.
Nevermind that he literally was equating the two and explicitly says so.