Listen now | Can you spot a valid argument when you see one?
It’s not explained what follows from having “white privilege” in this example, which means there’s nothing at stake in accepting or rejecting the initial assertion. Imagine this re-wording:
"All white people have privilege purely as a result of being white, while no black people ever have any privilege at all. People with privilege should have resources confiscated and given to those who lack privilege. Jack is a white, homeless, disabled, destitute man from Beattyville, Kentucky; while Oprah Winfrey is a black billionaire. Does it logically follow from CRT privilege theory that Jack should have the funding for his homeless shelter cut and handed over to Oprah to redevelop her fifth home?"
We don’t need to “fix” a problem with low-decouplers. As the author pointed out, they are better at pointing out flaws in their opponents’ arguments. We merely need to make certain that all factions have a chance to do so. Those of us without a dog in the fight will benefit.
Excellent post on an important topic. The problems of bias and defective reasoning are so rampant that it would be a great benefit to your readers (and their acquaintances) if you published a weekly or monthly article like this. Few people receive any rigorous training in correct reasoning, so beliefs are formed more often, I think, according to mere likes and dislikes, to thirsts and aversions.
It's btw that (2) looks like an example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent of a conditional proposition. It has the form
if a, then b;
therefore not b.
The wrongness of the conclusion can be illustrated by drawing concentric circles and labeling the inner one a and the outer, b.
People freak out about eugenics, which they assert is any sort of intentional breeding selection.
...And yet, they don't choose their partners entirely randomly, they're always quite particular. Go figure.
(2) seems to formulated with unnecessary complexity. Instead:
"Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is a person, then no one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a foetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a foetus."
So far as I can tell, this preserves the meaning. However, it also seems to me that the argument is logically valid, both in this formulation and the given one. Unless I'm missing some subtlety, e.g. that the opening statement identified a positive right to kill non-humans, but failed to articulate the premise that humans cannot be killed. Perhaps that's the point, but if so that's quite a tricky way to state it, which doesn't seem quite fair as the other 2 (only one of which I'm ideologically in favor of; I'm actually rather neutral on the second) are quite obviously logical.