4 ms·

> It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. This is Bulverism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedi

by philh 9y ago

> It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. This is Bulverism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

CydeWeys 9y ago
You're committing the logical fallacy of referencing a logical fallacy without actually refuting the content of what's been said. I suppose that'd make it ad hominem? Non sequitur? Red herring? Etc.? Please engage with what I've actually said. Do you really not see the problem with a fully able-bodied person saying that we shouldn't bother making any concessions to less able-bodied people by asserting that "it's obviously not worth the cost", without providing any evidence of such? To me, it is obviously worth the cost to build proper sidewalks, as everyone uses and benefits from them.
- philh 9y ago
  I wasn't taking a stance on the question of sidewalks, and I wasn't attempting to engage with most of your comment. I was pointing out that you were committing Bulverism. Bulverism is bad independent of anything else in your comment. We have a question: "is it cost-effective to build better sidewalks?" You think the answer is obviously yes. Jess does not think the answer is obviously yes. The thing to do here is to try to work out why the two of you disagree. The thing not to do is to accuse Jess of being unable to put himself in others' shoes. That's Bulverism, and it's shit. You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally deficient. Apart from being factually inaccurate, and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already convinced, it's a massive failure of empathy.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    I'm not interested in having a meta-conversation about logical fallacies that may or may not be in use in the actual conversation at hand. It's just a big derailment.
s73ver_ 9y ago
I'm not seeing a shred of fallacy in their argument. They said that one day, the other person will likely be in that same position that they dismiss now. And, given everything we know about aging, that's not far off.
- philh 9y ago
  > One day you will be old and less physically capable than you are now, Likely factually true. > and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. Not a statement of fact. The subtext is: "If you understood what these people are going through, you would agree with me".
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    No, it's a persuasive statement. It's how people talk. We are not cold, unfeeling automatons. We are people. And, quite frankly, yes, if you had empathy, you'd be all for making sure that these people could get around and participate in society.
    - philh 9y ago
      "It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said. Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.) Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less. Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        ""It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said." Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. "Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)" In what way? "Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less." Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements? "Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)" I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.

by philh 9y ago

> It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. This is Bulverism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

CydeWeys 9y ago

You're committing the logical fallacy of referencing a logical fallacy without actually refuting the content of what's been said. I suppose that'd make it ad hominem? Non sequitur? Red herring? Etc.? Please engage with what I've actually said. Do you really not see the problem with a fully able-bodied person saying that we shouldn't bother making any concessions to less able-bodied people by asserting that "it's obviously not worth the cost", without providing any evidence of such? To me, it is obviously worth the cost to build proper sidewalks, as everyone uses and benefits from them.

philh 9y ago
I wasn't taking a stance on the question of sidewalks, and I wasn't attempting to engage with most of your comment. I was pointing out that you were committing Bulverism. Bulverism is bad independent of anything else in your comment. We have a question: "is it cost-effective to build better sidewalks?" You think the answer is obviously yes. Jess does not think the answer is obviously yes. The thing to do here is to try to work out why the two of you disagree. The thing not to do is to accuse Jess of being unable to put himself in others' shoes. That's Bulverism, and it's shit. You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally deficient. Apart from being factually inaccurate, and unconvincing to anyone who isn't already convinced, it's a massive failure of empathy.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  I'm not interested in having a meta-conversation about logical fallacies that may or may not be in use in the actual conversation at hand. It's just a big derailment.

s73ver_ 9y ago

I'm not seeing a shred of fallacy in their argument. They said that one day, the other person will likely be in that same position that they dismiss now. And, given everything we know about aging, that's not far off.

philh 9y ago
> One day you will be old and less physically capable than you are now, Likely factually true. > and maybe then you will change your tune. It's unfortunate that you can't yet put yourself in the shoes of those people. Not a statement of fact. The subtext is: "If you understood what these people are going through, you would agree with me".
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  No, it's a persuasive statement. It's how people talk. We are not cold, unfeeling automatons. We are people. And, quite frankly, yes, if you had empathy, you'd be all for making sure that these people could get around and participate in society.
  - philh 9y ago
    "It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said. Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.) Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less. Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      ""It's a persuasive statement" isn't incompatible with anything I said. It's a persuasive statement and it's Bulverism and it should not have been said." Completely wrong. As I said, we are not robots. We do not operate solely on cold, unfeeling logic. "Also: yes hello, I am a person and not a cold, unfeeling automaton, and generally speaking I do not talk that way. (I probably slip up sometimes. I would like to be called out when I do.)" In what way? "Also also: people do and say lots of things that are bad. I think that "that's how people talk" is a really weird defense. Obviously some people talk like that some of the time. I'm trying to get them to do it less." Do what less? Speak in things that aren't programming statements? "Do you think you understand why Jess believes what he believes? Because I'm fairly confident he does not lack empathy. I think that accusation demonstrates a failure of empathy. (Not a lack, mind you - just a failure.)" I very much do believe they lack empathy. And quite frankly, I believe this push for speech to be "nothing but a pure factual statement, akin to a programming statement" to be part of the problem.