# Ugh, Embarrassed this Douche is on "My side" (Chik-fil-a) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 3, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329 "2012-08-03T18:15:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/361 "2012-08-29T08:18:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > = > D. Each conversant is expressing other propositions which all conversants agree, prima facie, seem to make the declarative sentence which they disagree about either seem more likely to be true or seem less likely to be true. In that case, I have veto power over what and what is not a “claim” by your definition. For example, I reject the assertion that higher vitamin B content makes avocado seem more likely to be the best food. > [@](#): > > That is a false claim. So that I can understand where you are coming from, can you provide your explanation/evidence/argument as to why it is false to claim that “generally speaking, it is inappropriate to gamble.” > [@](#): > > You didn’t ask, but I should add, for a reason that will become clear shortly, that a declarative sentence is “amenable” to rational dispute in a particular linguistic context when, in that context, a token of that declarative sentence expresses a proposition for which there exist facts that make that proposition, in that context, either more likely to be true or less likely to be true. What are some facts that make “green is the best color” either more likely or less likely to be true? What about for “avocado is the best food”? > [@](#): > > Not true. “Demonstration” means absolutely conclusive proof. I disagree with your definition, but I will re-phrase: Please provide evidence or argument for your (apparent) claim that the appropriateness of criticism is to be judged on utilitarian grounds. > [@](#): > > You’re right that it’s clear it’s probably no use talking to the person above. But it is not a valid parody of anything I’ve said, since I have gone through considerable lengths to explain and support the views I’ve expressed in this conversation. Not if you refuse to explain what the correct criteria are and to provide evidence or argument for the correctness of those criteria. > [@](#): > > This person has made it clear that they have an objectively measurable standard for “best food,” and so they are indeed making a claim and it is indeed amenable to rational dispute. For example, if I were able to show that he was mistaken about the vitamin B content, could only be grown in Norway, is found in few dishes, and is disliked by most people, then he would presumably feel obligated to retract his claim. Now–if I showed all that and he _didn’t_ feel obligated to retract his claim, this wouldn’t show that he hadn’t been making a claim amenable to rational dispute. Rather, it would show that despite the fact that he made a claim, he is not actually prepared to follow through on the implications of that fact. So your position is that “avocado is the best food” is indeed a “claim” which is true or false? > [@](#): > > There are two different things to judge. > > I think two different senses of “appropriate” have been conflated. One sense I would term as “legitimacy.” The other I’d term as appropriateness properly speaking. > > Legitimacy relies on what is actually the case. Appropriateness (properly speaking) relies on what they reasonably\* believe. > > Roughly speaking, moral criticism is appropriate when making the criticism doesn’t make you a jerk. It’s legitimate when it actually hits its mark–when the criticism is correct, basically. Ok, so using this definition of “appropriate,” you agree that your earlier statement – A criticism based on incorrect beliefs about the situation is inappropriate – is incorrect? > [@](#): > > It is hard for me to understand how it could be “nitpicking” to draw attention to the well-established, well-founded distinction between conclusions and assumptions. You said knowledge is “just reasonable assumptions” and that is simply, plainly, non-nitpickingly false. So the following statement is plainly, non-nitpickingly false? > [@](#): > > “Socrates is mortal” is a reasonable assumption ---
**Author:** ![Molotok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@Molotok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Molotok)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/362 "2012-08-29T09:01:01Z")
How the hell did you guys go from ‘‘guy harrassing low wage worker’’ to ‘‘avocadoes are the best food’’??? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/363 "2012-08-29T09:22:20Z")
> [@boomerwang](#): > > How the hell did you guys go from ‘‘guy harrassing low wage worker’’ to ‘‘avocadoes are the best food’’??? Basically, I think that the judging the appropriateness of criticizing a low level worker requires you to balance competing values so to a large extent it’s a matter of opinion as to when it is and isn’t appropriate. **Frylock** disagrees with this and believes that there is a Correct Answer to the question. I am attempting to demonstrate that his reasoning leads to absurdities. For example, his reasoning would seem to lead to the position that “avocado is the best food” is not an opinion but is a statement that is true or false. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/364 "2012-08-29T09:27:25Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > you can actually get by without fried chicken. Maybe you can… ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/365 "2012-08-29T11:20:20Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > In that case, I have veto power over what and what is not a “claim” by your definition. For example, I reject the assertion that higher vitamin B content makes avocado seem more likely to be the best food. Note that, in the snippet you were responding to, I wasn’t defining “claim” but “rational dispute.” If you are a party to a dispute, you do indeed have the power to affect whether the dispute is a rational one or not. > [@](#): > > So that I can understand where you are coming from, can you provide your explanation/evidence/argument as to why it is false to claim that “generally speaking, it is inappropriate to gamble.” There is no generally applicable principle which would require that I may not play low-stakes poker with my son and my wife assuming we are all wealthy. Since there is no such generally applicable principle, there is a case in which it is appropriate to gamble. Hence it’s false that it’s always inappropriate to gamble. If I were in a rational dispute about this, someone might reply by naming a general principle–such as “never gamble.” Subsequently, (if I were in a rational dispute,) I would ask them to provide support for that claim. If I am in a rational dispute, they will do so. And the claim is amenable to rational dispute because it is possible for me to be in a rational dispute about it, as defined in my previous post. > [@](#): > > What are some facts that make “green is the best color” either more likely or less likely to be true? > > What about for “avocado is the best food”? See below. > [@](#): > > I disagree with your definition, but I will re-phrase: Please provide evidence or argument for your (apparent) claim that the appropriateness of criticism is to be judged on utilitarian grounds. The appropriateness of criticism turns on whether it makes you a jerk or not. “Whether it makes you a jerk or not” is a utilitarian ground, since it’s a phrase describing a consequence. Hence, the appropriateness of criticism is to be judged on utilitarian grounds. > [@](#): > > So your position is that “avocado is the best food” is indeed a “claim” which is true or false? My position is that when the person in your scenario said “avocado is the best food,” he was making a claim which is true or false. This is not to say that everyone woh says “avocado is the best food” is making a claim which is true or false. We know that the person in your scenario was making a claim which is true or false, because his subsequent offer of reasoning in support of the declarative statement shows he intended it with the force of a claim, i.e. amenability to judgments of truth or falsehood. What he was trying to say, in other words, was something that can be true or false. But not everyone who says “avocado is the best food” is trying to say the same thing as the person in your scenario. > [@](#): > > Ok, so using this definition of “appropriate,” you agree that your earlier statement – A criticism based on incorrect beliefs about the situation is inappropriate – is incorrect? Not quite, but just as good: Using the new language I’ve introduced by making the distinction between legitimacy and appropriateness, I’d say that my previous claim that those criticisms are “inappropriate” should be understood to have had the sense of those criticisms being “illegitimate” instead. > [@](#): > > So the following statement is plainly, non-nitpickingly false? No. “‘Socrates is mortal’ is just a reasonable assumption.” \<— plainly, non-nitpickingly false. “‘Socrates is mortal’ is a reasonable assumption.” \<----Not plainly, non-nitpickingly false. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty plainly true. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/366 "2012-09-08T17:08:15Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Note that, in the snippet you were responding to, I wasn’t defining “claim” but “rational dispute.” If you are a party to a dispute, you do indeed have the power to affect whether the dispute is a rational one or not. Well in that case, every last opinion is actually a “claim” since a pair of people could in theory satisfy your A, B, C, and D. And therefore, by your reasoning, every last opinion is either true or false. > [@](#): > > There is no generally applicable principle which would require that I may not play low-stakes poker with my son and my wife assuming we are all wealthy. Sure there is – for example, the principle that it’s harmful to one’s soul to gamble. > [@](#): > > Hence it’s false that it’s always inappropriate to gamble. Whoa, please show me where I talked about “always inappropriate to gamble,” as opposed to “generally speaking.” Failing that, please admit that I said no such thing and apologize. > [@](#): > > The appropriateness of criticism turns on whether it makes you a jerk or not. Why? > [@](#): > > “Whether it makes you a jerk or not” is a utilitarian ground, since it’s a phrase describing a consequence. Where is the necessary negative utility in being a jerk? Are you saying that there is nothing inherently bad with being a jerk per se? > [@](#): > > My position is that when the person in your scenario said “avocado is the best food,” he was making a claim which is true or false. This is not to say that everyone woh says “avocado is the best food” is making a claim which is true or false. We know that the person in your scenario was making a claim which is true or false, because his subsequent offer of reasoning in support of the declarative statement shows he intended it So whether or not a statement is a “claim” depends on the intentions of the persons making the statement? Not quite, but just as good: Using the new language I’ve introduced by making the distinction between legitimacy and appropriateness, I’d say that my previous claim that those criticisms are “inappropriate” should be understood to have had the sense of those criticisms being “illegitimate” instead. > [@](#): > > “‘Socrates is mortal’ is just a reasonable assumption.” \<— plainly, non-nitpickingly false. > > “‘Socrates is mortal’ is a reasonable assumption.” \<----Not plainly, non-nitpickingly false. In fact, I’d say it’s pretty plainly true. That’s ridiculous. For example, if somebody says “‘Socrates is mortal’ is just a reasonable assumption,” the principle of charity requires that the statement be interpreted in such a way as to be correct and reasonable. i.e. in line with the second statement which you concede is true. Instead, you are choosing ways to interpret my language so as to make the things that I say less reasonable. Please stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/367 "2012-09-08T17:35:40Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Well in that case, every last opinion is actually a “claim” since a pair of people could in theory satisfy your A, B, C, and D. And therefore, by your reasoning, every last opinion is either true or false. You’re still not keeping straight the fact that ABCD define “rational dispute,” not “claim.” Two people can mistakenly have a rational dispute about matters which are not amenable to rational dispute. A claim is an utterance which is amenable to rational dispute, as defined by me above. > [@](#): > > Sure there is – for example, the principle that it’s harmful to one’s soul to gamble. Sorry, by that I meant “generally applicable and correct.” > [@](#): > > Whoa, please show me where I talked about “always inappropriate to gamble,” as opposed to “generally speaking.” Failing that, please admit that I said no such thing and apologize. I take “generally speaking” to mean “always” in the context of formulating principles for action. What do you take it to mean? > [@](#): > > Why? I’m telling you what I mean when I call a criticism “inappropriate” under the new distinction drawn recently between appropriateness and legitimacy. The answer to “why” is just “This is what I mean when I use the word.” > [@](#): > > Where is the necessary negative utility in being a jerk? Are you saying that there is nothing inherently bad with being a jerk per se? I didn’t say anything about necessary negative utility. But you do not owe me an apology as I understand misunderstandings are innocent. Being a jerk usually, probably, in most cases, tends to reduce the amount of happiness in the world. > [@](#): > > So whether or not a statement is a “claim” depends on the intentions of the persons making the statement? It depends on what they’re trying to say, which is determined in part by their intentions. > [@](#): > > That’s ridiculous. I disagree. “X is a reasonable assumption” and “X is just a reasonable assumption” are so distinct in meaning that it would not be reasonable for a person to think you meant the former by the latter. But now you’ve clarified you meant the former, so that’s taken under advisement. Can you explicate what that changes about the strength of either of our lines of reasoning? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/368 "2012-09-08T18:01:55Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > You’re still not keeping straight the fact that ABCD define “rational dispute,” not “claim.” You defined a “claim” as something which is “amenable to rational dispute” > [@](#): > > Two people can mistakenly have a rational dispute about matters which are not amenable to rational dispute. Not by your criteria, since they are subjective. > [@](#): > > Sorry, by that I meant “generally applicable and correct.” “It is harmful to one’s soul to gamble” is in fact generally applicable and correct by your reasoning. (1) If you gamble, it makes you a jerk. (2) Being a jerk is harmful to your soul. QED. > [@](#): > > I take “generally speaking” to mean “always” in the context of formulating principles for action. What do you take it to mean? Ummm, I go with the same definition that most people use – “usually, but not always.” Here’s the definition from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) > [@](#): > > 1. usually; commonly; ordinarily: He generally comes home at noon. > > 2.with respect to the larger part; for the most part: a generally accurate interpretation of the facts. > 3. without reference to or disregarding particular persons, things, situations, etc., that may be an exception: generally speaking. Note that each and every definition of “generally” contains the idea that there may be exceptions to the rule. And yet you chose your own non-standard definition of “generally” which allowed you to interpret my statement in a much more unreasonable way. You’ve done this 2 or 3 times now. I have my own rules of debate, and one rule is that I do not engage with people who strawman me, i.e. people who insist on pretending I have said something different from what I actually said. The fact is that “generally speaking it is inappropriate to gamble” is different from “it is always inappropriate to gamble.” Any intellectually honest person would recognize this fact. Thus, I will no longer engage with you. Goodbye. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/369 "2012-09-08T20:32:42Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure there is – for example, the principle that it’s harmful to one’s soul to gamble. I disagree that this is a generally applicable principle. > [@brazil84](#): > > The fact is that “generally speaking it is inappropriate to gamble” is different from “it is always inappropriate to gamble.” Any intellectually honest person would recognize this fact. I recognize there are two different claims there. I say both are incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/370 "2012-09-08T20:58:51Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > “It is harmful to one’s soul to gamble” is in fact generally applicable and correct by your reasoning. > > (1) If you gamble, it makes you a jerk. > > (2) Being a jerk is harmful to your soul. > > QED. The fact that you believe that you have actually demonstrated something here speaks volumes about your character and intellect. I’ll give you this, though: there are few people on this board better at reigniting basically moribund threads with ridiculous arguments. The idea that “it’s harmful to one’s soul to gamble” is some sort of generally-applicable principle is one of the more hilarious claims i’ve read recently. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/371 "2012-09-08T21:00:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree that this is a generally applicable principle. I think what you are trying to say is that you disagree with the principle itself. To illustrate, “Always kick puppy dogs if the opportunity presents itself” is a generally applicable principle. > [@](#): > > I recognize there are two different claims there. > > I say both are incorrect. And I would say that it’s a matter of opinion. At least as to the weaker claim. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/372 "2012-09-08T21:01:51Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > . . . I do not engage with this poster due to his past dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/373 "2012-09-08T21:03:38Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I do not engage with this poster due to his past dishonesty. You keep building that list there, douchebag. Believe me, everyone around here knows that the list says more about your own dishonesty than about the people you are ignoring. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/374 "2012-09-08T21:05:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > To illustrate, “Always kick puppy dogs if the opportunity presents itself” is a generally applicable principle. This is comedy, right? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/375 "2012-09-08T21:33:26Z")
You’ve shut this interesting conversation down based on a mistake. You see misunderstandings as malicious when they’re not. You clarified your meaning concerning “generally,” and, like **Bricker** , I definitely see the two claims as distinct and could easily continue the conversation knowing which you meant. (If I were malicious, I’d insist on misunderstanding you instead of accepting your corrections in good faith. Contrary to the word you used, I have not “insisted” on misunderstanding you.) But you have chosen for things not to be that way. What can I do but respect your choice? Thanks for the interesting conversation, in any case. I’d even say I found it to be edifying–I had to think twice and one occasion even had to deal with a genuine contradiction in my thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/376 "2012-09-08T21:35:43Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > The fact that you believe that you have actually demonstrated something here speaks volumes about your character and intellect. I’m not sure he intended to use that argument to express his own thoughts on the matter–I think he was offering the first premise as an example of a claim which is neither true nor false. My response to him would have been to give reasons to disbelieve the claim, thereby giving evidence that it is a claim which is false, rather than one which is neither true nor false. But, he has decided not to continue the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/377 "2012-09-08T21:36:45Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > This is comedy, right? He doesn’t mean it’s one which anyone should follow. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/378 "2012-09-08T21:43:11Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > He doesn’t mean it’s one which anyone should follow. But the term has no meaning then. If something truly is a “generally applicable principle,” it needs to attach, at some level at least, to the ways in which people actually think and act. Simply adding (or implying) the word “always” to a statement does not magically turn the assertion into a generally applicable principle. The funny thing is that, when **Bricker** said that he disagreed that “it’s harmful to one’s soul to gamble” is a generally applicable principle, **brazil84** responded that “I think what you are trying to say is that you disagree with the principle itself..” And yet, **brazil84** has demonstrated nothing about his “generally applicable principle” that would, in fact, make it generally applicable. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/379 "2012-09-08T21:47:38Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But the term has no meaning then. If something truly is a “generally applicable principle,” it needs to attach, at some level at least, to the ways in which people actually think and act. Simply adding (or implying) the word “always” to a statement does not magically turn the assertion into a generally applicable principle. > > The funny thing is that, when **Bricker** said that he disagreed that “it’s harmful to one’s soul to gamble” is a generally applicable principle, **brazil84** responded that “I think what you are trying to say is that you disagree with the principle itself..” > > And yet, **brazil84** has demonstrated nothing about his “generally applicable principle” that would, in fact, make it generally applicable. **Brazil** was saying that **Bricker** was wrong to think that, just because he thinks the principle isn’t true, he thereby thinks it’s not generally applicable. What I gather **Brazil** means by “generally applicable principle” is “principle which is intended to apply in most cases.” On that definition, there can be true generally applicable principles, and false generally applicable principles. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329/380 "2012-09-08T21:58:06Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > **Brazil** was saying that **Bricker** was wrong to think that, just because he thinks the principle isn’t true, he thereby thinks it’s not generally applicable. I understand that. > [@Frylock](#): > > What I gather **Brazil** means by “generally applicable principle” is “principle which is intended to apply in most cases.” On that definition, there can be true generally applicable principles, and false generally applicable principles. But, in my opinion, the two phrases that you have equated in your first sentence are not, in fact, equivalent, and equating them makes a nonsense of the whole exercise. The fact that someone might intend or hope or argue for a principle to apply in most cases does not mean that the principle necessarily does, in fact, apply in most cases. This is precisely the difference between a “generally applicable principle” and “something that i think _should_ be generally applicable.” I have no doubt that some people believe that gambling is harmful to the soul, and that they believe that this principle applies to everyone that gambles. But this doesn’t make it a generally applicable principle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ugh-embarrassed-this-douche-is-on-my-side-chik-fil-a/630329.md?page=20)