3 ms·
Affirming the consequent. Jumping to conclusions. Appeal to emotion. Also, there's a reason they use language like this. Namely, say they wrote the sentence yo
by saulrh 11y ago
Affirming the consequent. Jumping to conclusions. Appeal to emotion.
Also, there's a reason they use language like this. Namely, say they wrote the sentence you arrived at; what do you think the reaction would be? Riots, right? Violent, righteous riots. Sounds good - up until the mob gets to the hospital and finds the involved officer's partner there being fixed up after getting shot three times in the chest. Feels silly, right? You don't do major things when you don't know what happened. And that's why they use this language: they don't know what happened either, and until they do they're not going to say what happened.
Don't jump to conclusions.
Finally: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> Namely, say they wrote the sentence you arrived at; what do you think the reaction would be? Riots, right? Violent, righteous riots. Uh, there's riots anyway. Not buying your argument.
- moosemilkie 11y agoIf you click the "source" link at the bottom of the piece, you'll find that this is not a hypothetical situation. That's an actual statement put out the police themselves, who know exactly what happened.
- saulrh 11y agoI am aware. How does this affect my point? The essay here would have been just as correctly concluded by disambiguating the police statement into "A black person shot a police officer."
- moosemilkie 11y agoIf you're aware, then why lie, and say they didn't know what happened? Why make up a fairy tale about "violent, righteous riots" and an injured police officer? I can't tell you how it affects your point because I apparently don't understand what your point was supposed to be.
- saulrh 11y agoI think I'd just woken up and didn't realize that I could have insulted your argument more strongly and directly. I apologize for that. Ignore that comment in favor of "The article could have concluded more correctly by disambiguating the statement into 'A black person shot a police officer.'". And, honestly, I should have realized this argument was more or less pointless. The original article is strongly ideologically motivated and you can't argue someone out of a position they didn't argue themselves into.
- moosemilkie 11y agoI merely wanted to let you know that your assumption that their example was hypothetical was wrong, since you filled it out with some fictitious details instead of the truth. Which you're still doing, in claiming that anybody shot a police officer - no officer was injured in the incident. This would make your suggestion less correct, rather than more correct, since it is false.