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?
“Drawing the line” is a Thought Terminating Phrase, which is a concept worth reading and thinking about.
In the abstract / in your example, if you’re just “drawing the line” then no, that’s not a legitimate argument. It is literally just you saying “nope, I arbitrarily say this is different then this”.
However, if you can back up why one thing is different from the other, then it is valid to distinguish between them. Sometimes it can be worth dividing a system into chunks and drawing arbitrary lines rather not drawing any, but you should still be able to logically back up why it’s better to chunk things than not.
But in your example, it sounds like you don’t actually have a logical argument, just one based on you arbitrarily deciding that music can only be made by a human.