Thread by @EveKeneinan

This fallacy should be given a name.

I will show why it is a fallacious argument by way of analogy.

https://twitter.com/bookkeepPLUS/status/1408030935044571136

It is a highly complex matter to sort out John Locke’s political arguments, especially in dialogue with Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, etc. It is graduate level work.

BUT — it is not hard to teach children that democracy is good and all men are created equal and have equal rights.

That is to say, one *can* (and we have traditionally done) teach children the PRINCIPLES and CONSEQUENCES of a broadly Lockean theory of political right. That is basically Americanism.

It's not necessary to teach the most difficult Lockean arguments re: representative democracy.

Of course, I don’t need to go there for my analogy.

I was taught physics in high school. But physics requires very advanced study, well beyond high school level!

Yes, but you can teach “high school physics.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ideas about race and morality derive from Ghandi, Thoreau and Plato’s Socrates as well as the Christian moral tradition.

You don’t NEED to work through all of that to teach “don’t judge people by their skin color, but by their character” as a PRINCIPLE.

The study of what GROUNDS “do not judge men by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” matters only when the PRINCIPLE is questioned or rejected.

“Why should I do that?” someone may ask.

The fully educated person can ANSWER that question.