Here is an example:
Barry to Popperian:
Anyone who cannot unambiguously condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat shares in the evil of those who do so.
Note how Barry is making my point for me. I wrote:
From time to time, old words become obsolete. For an non-essentialist this is not a problem. This is because non-essentialists view words as a tool, not a Thing with a capital T. If any word ceases to function as a tool, a non-essentialists will quickly let it go and find some other new tool to solve problems with. On the other hand, an essentialist will not do this. Why not? Because, for the essentialist, all words correspond with Things with a capital T. And Things do not just disappear. Because of this view, an essentialist is significantly less likely to change their opinion of anything, if at all.
However, an essentialist is sure that some Thing actually corresponds with his words. As such, he will try to figure out why a non-essentialist won’t admit there really is such a Thing as the Thing he is talking about. The essentialist might merely think the non-essentialist is merely ignorant, or that their intellect is on the fritz. Or he might even decide you are down right evil. But the essentialist certainly won’t agree the Thing he refers to with his word can be so quickly dismissed.
(emphasis in original)
Let’s examine this. It is 1943 and I say:
Anyone who cannot unambiguously condemn the practice of cooking Jews in ovens like so much meat shares in the evil of those who do so.
What would you think of someone who gave Popperian’s response? You would think they agree with the goals of the Holocaust and therefore share in the guilt of that unspeakable evil. And you would be right.
So yes, Popperian, I do say you are down right evil.
Popperian thinks he is oh-so-sophisticated. “Words are so ambiguous; I can’t possibly condemn the killers.” Meanwhile the slaughter of innocents continues unabated.
Damn your pseudo-sophisticated sophistry Popperian. It is counterproductive to dignify it by getting into the weeds and countering your logical fallacies point by point. Instead, like Dr. Johnson and his famous rock kicking demonstration, I refute your moral theorizing thusly:
Does your moral theory compel you unambiguously to condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat?
No? Then your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.