system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The argument "either it's all ok, or none of it's ok" is a bad argument.

I see this argument a lot when it comes to making off-color jokes. Someone will say:

\>You shouldn't joke about x.

And the next person will reply

\>Look, either all jokes are ok, or none of them are ok.

While I agree with the sentiment that we should be able to joke about anything, I think this common argument is very flawed. Let's take the logic to the extreme.

\>Murder is terrible, but self-defense is ok.

\>Look, either all killing is ok, or none of it is ok.

or

\>Rape is inexcusable.

\>Look, either all sex is ok, or none of it is ok.

or

\>Pedophilia is horrid

\>Look, either all love is ok, or none of it is ok.

Et cetera. Basically, this argument tries to create a situation where there's only two options. It's either a) all ok or b) not ok. But for most issues, this is not the case.
gpt
"It's all okay or none of it is okay" can work in scenarios when trying to expose hypocricy.  
  
A simple example is in a classroom, one child brings ina bag of candy. They are the teachers favourite, and it doesn't cause them to become hyperactive when they sneak a piece from their desk from time to time. Well, the other children see this and ask if they can bring in candy too. Of course, these children are not ot as well behaved, and it would cause a disturbance if they were allowed candy.   
It isn't fair that one child is allowed candy while none of the others are. There should be a clear cut rule with no exceptions, or else no rule at all.