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?
In this situation it’s safe to say that the DJ of the 90s vs AI today is an “Apples and oranges” comparison.
Where you’re taking an endeavour of human effort to take bits of music that already exist and making something brand new out of it, much the same way you could reuse wood claimed from an old 1920s boat to make a new one. Comparing that to “The computer program that makes something that sounds like it could be music because it’s copying real songs.”
I know it’s just an analogy to give an example but ive heard the argument so many times now it’s become habit to talk it through lol.
In terms of holding two similar beliefs that are tangentially related, it’s entirely possible to say where you draw the line, especially if the argument is a fallacy, for example like the slippery slope, where a person arguing believes that any minor concession will have an exaggerated impact.