I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.
If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?
For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.
I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?
Most people honestly don’t use clear lines in their logic. Even for many laws and ethics, we don’t. I personally think this is okay because using the “drawing a line” thinking is restrictive, meaning it doesn’t allow you to grow so well, intellectually-speaking.
A common way people fail to keep to their lines in the sand is when they justify their side, politically speaking, to do something that they’ve demanded the enemy cannot do. This is bad and unfair. But then again, I’m sure a lot of you will be guilty of this way of thinking throughout your life - we’re only human.