What do you think it’s saying? I’m assuming it’s that the guy is using a flawed argument in situations that make it increasingly obvious, with the third one being utterly ridiculous that he thinks it’s a gotcha.
That is what it’s saying, but that completely contradicts what you said before, that he’s “right” in the first case and “debatable” in the second. The point is he’s wrong in all three and the comic is demonstrating that by applying his logic to increasingly absurd situations.
He’s not totally wrong in the first one. You can buy phones that are more ethically produced than Apple ones. There is a choice to get something better, even if it’s not perfect. In the second one there is no choice to get a different one, but there is a choice not to buy one at all. In the third one there is no choice in any way.
You’re completely missing the point. Whether or not you buy a car that doesn’t have seatbelts, it’s still a good idea for cars to have seatbelts. The criticism of individual choice is irrelevant, it’s ad hominem.
Your interpretation makes no sense at all. As if it’s just a random series of disconnected events as opposed to a clear line of reasoning critiquing the original point. Like, you can’t possibly believe that the author’s intent wasn’t to critique the original point, right? You even said as much.
That’s not what the comic is saying at all. What do you think the message of the comic is? That feudalism is bad?
What do you think it’s saying? I’m assuming it’s that the guy is using a flawed argument in situations that make it increasingly obvious, with the third one being utterly ridiculous that he thinks it’s a gotcha.
That is what it’s saying, but that completely contradicts what you said before, that he’s “right” in the first case and “debatable” in the second. The point is he’s wrong in all three and the comic is demonstrating that by applying his logic to increasingly absurd situations.
He’s not totally wrong in the first one. You can buy phones that are more ethically produced than Apple ones. There is a choice to get something better, even if it’s not perfect. In the second one there is no choice to get a different one, but there is a choice not to buy one at all. In the third one there is no choice in any way.
You’re completely missing the point. Whether or not you buy a car that doesn’t have seatbelts, it’s still a good idea for cars to have seatbelts. The criticism of individual choice is irrelevant, it’s ad hominem.
It’s the same point but my interpretation makes more sense. You don’t need a 4 panel comic for a simple criticism of ad hominem.
Your interpretation makes no sense at all. As if it’s just a random series of disconnected events as opposed to a clear line of reasoning critiquing the original point. Like, you can’t possibly believe that the author’s intent wasn’t to critique the original point, right? You even said as much.