The question asks why the audience’s student loans should be repaid now when hers were not. The response is that the reason is the same as paying for her son’s prison sentence for raping a minor, which is “betterment of society”. Let’s count the number of ways this fails:
“For the betterment of society” is a justification that could be used for pretty much any defensible policy decision. It really doesn’t further the argument at all unless there is something specified about how paying student loans makes society better.
RAPING A MINOR is in caps both to indicate shoutiness and to emphasize this aspect of the crime, which again, is hard to tie back to an argument about student loans
The main failure - the fact that it’s a blatant ad hominem directed at the poster for having a son who raped a minor, which is an evidently successful attempt to hide the weakness of the purported argument by casting the OP as someone whom one would not want to be associated with by virtue of being a parent to a rapist. This implied argument, which is the real argument, is invalid in the absence of evidence that rapist-parents cannot have valid opinions.
It’s also a particularly egregious example of an ad hominem because it relies on guilt/worthiness by blood relation, the same concept behind ideas like racism and even worse, inheritance.
Better answers might include:
Education costs have risen to a degree that the fairness calculation is now different
Student loan debt is a threat to the whole economy and just as bailing out banks sometimes makes sense, bailing out student loan holders might as well
Financial inequality is out of control and we should dispense with antiquated notions of “fairness” to the wealthy when circumstances have been more fair to them overall than at any time in the past
But these answers would not get reposted on social media as much because they don’t play into tribalism and social drama.
I’d argue the main part of the argument isn’t the ad hominem. “For the betterment of society” works in this argument and it doesn’t really focuses on the mother, it just makes her realize that this is a real situation that she herself should know personally.
It does address using taxpayer money to lock up violent criminals is beneficial for society and supporting and without going in to depth, it also argues that the idea of student debt repayment would also be a net positive for society.
Sure, it’s not a detailed argument but it’s also not playing on guiltiness by blood relation saying she should be locked up as well.
Forgiving student loans is social welfare that will bolster the economy and society collectively.
Her son being a degenerate child rapist burdens society to ensure the safety and security of its populace from his abhorrent ‘need’ to get his dick wet in children.
If anything she should be fighting for more broad societal benefits since she produced and raised such a destructive piece of shit.
So this version of the argument basically amounts to: people who have harmed society should contribute to social welfare that bolsters the economy and society collectively. Which while a solid effort and earning my upvote, 1) the_petty_auntie’s reply doesn’t show signs of making this particular argument and 2) in this particular case, it fails because society as a whole wasn’t harmed by her son’s actions - rather a particular victim was. And as the victim was a teen at the time of the incident, it’s unlikely that the victim would be able to take advantage of student loan forgiveness unless it happened many years ago.
First, I think everyone should want to contribute to social welfare that bolsters the economy and society. I think it’s abhorrent to contribute to that negatively and maliciously, even if indirectly, and then try to further drag everyone down. She’s a cancer.
You think a child being raped only harms the individual that’s raped? Ever heard of seconds and third order effects? I disagree that the only person negatively impacted was the child he raped.
All three people here are terrible
Go ahead, explain, what did the guy answering her question do wrong, exactly?
The question asks why the audience’s student loans should be repaid now when hers were not. The response is that the reason is the same as paying for her son’s prison sentence for raping a minor, which is “betterment of society”. Let’s count the number of ways this fails:
Better answers might include:
But these answers would not get reposted on social media as much because they don’t play into tribalism and social drama.
I’d argue the main part of the argument isn’t the ad hominem. “For the betterment of society” works in this argument and it doesn’t really focuses on the mother, it just makes her realize that this is a real situation that she herself should know personally.
It does address using taxpayer money to lock up violent criminals is beneficial for society and supporting and without going in to depth, it also argues that the idea of student debt repayment would also be a net positive for society.
Sure, it’s not a detailed argument but it’s also not playing on guiltiness by blood relation saying she should be locked up as well.
So obtuse
Ah, so you’re calling them a terrible person because you misunderstand what’s going on in their reply, gotcha
Assuming you actually believe I misunderstood their argument, perhaps it would be more useful to explain their actual argument that I’m not grasping?
Forgiving student loans is social welfare that will bolster the economy and society collectively.
Her son being a degenerate child rapist burdens society to ensure the safety and security of its populace from his abhorrent ‘need’ to get his dick wet in children.
If anything she should be fighting for more broad societal benefits since she produced and raised such a destructive piece of shit.
So this version of the argument basically amounts to: people who have harmed society should contribute to social welfare that bolsters the economy and society collectively. Which while a solid effort and earning my upvote, 1) the_petty_auntie’s reply doesn’t show signs of making this particular argument and 2) in this particular case, it fails because society as a whole wasn’t harmed by her son’s actions - rather a particular victim was. And as the victim was a teen at the time of the incident, it’s unlikely that the victim would be able to take advantage of student loan forgiveness unless it happened many years ago.
First, I think everyone should want to contribute to social welfare that bolsters the economy and society. I think it’s abhorrent to contribute to that negatively and maliciously, even if indirectly, and then try to further drag everyone down. She’s a cancer.
You think a child being raped only harms the individual that’s raped? Ever heard of seconds and third order effects? I disagree that the only person negatively impacted was the child he raped.