Is this a legit argument? Why or why not?

by **hrafn** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:02 am

Argument: What's true for you isn't true for me.
Example: Say you get stopped by a cop and he says you were speeding. You politely respond with "that may be true for you but that's not true for me".

(Probably not the best example cause you would probably get a ticket anyway but hopefully you get what I am saying)

by **adusa37** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:04 am

Huh? I'm sorry I'm confused. You guys are obviously a lot more smart then I.... *sad face*

by **benon** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:13 am

I honestly don't think that argument is valid for just about anything, other than person preference.

There is underlying truth to reality that isn't changed by perspective. If that were not the case, then there wouldn't even be a reality.

No, your example isn't good, since he can show you evidence from a radar gun that you were going at a certain speed and that the sign by the road shows that the speed limit is a lower speed. You can't argue your perspective against facts.

Again, when someone is holding a bird and you say that to you it's a fish, that's not valid argumentation. You can think it's a fish all you want, but that doesn't make it not a bird.

by **honi** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:19 am

An argument needs at least two premises and a conclusion. A logical argument will employ logic to reach it's conclusion.

Premise: Speeding is a relative term.
Premise: The speed limit law is only one context for the term speeding.
Conclusion: If you assert through your legal power over me that I must not exceed a certain limit, and define the act of exceeding that limit as speeding, than I am only guilty of speeding in your frame of reference. I am free to determine that speeding means something else, perhaps traveling at an unsafe speed. Due to my youthful reflexes and excellent peripheral vision, I can travel more safely than the average person at a higher rate of speed. Therefore, by my definition, I am not speeding

by **byron92** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:25 am

Your argument can be valid and at other times it cannot be. It depends on the people involved and their perceptions of what situation they may be judging. What may be good for you, or true for you may or maynot be true for another. I would not try this with a cop. They have the power for the moment and it is not worth dealing with the coppers in most cases unless you are fighting something in court.

by **aingeni** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:28 am

This is not a legit argument. Philosophy can't excuse bad driving habits, as they wont stop you if you're only ~3 over the limit.

Advertisments:

Useful Links: