4 ms·
Do you really not understand the logic here, or are you making an ideological argument? Try this analogous title, perhaps from an article arguing that exaggera
by monoideism 6y ago
Do you really not understand the logic here, or are you making an ideological argument?
Try this analogous title, perhaps from an article arguing that exaggerated fear responses are all rooted in X or Y:
"Fear of mice Is Fear of spiders"
Surely, whether you agree or disagree with the article's thesis, you'd not argue that the article is implying that mice == spiders?
- yellowapple 6y ago> "Fear of mice Is Fear of spiders" Another good example of a title that tries to conflate two concepts and ends up being nonsense as a result. Thanks for helping prove my point. > Surely, whether you agree or disagree with the article's thesis, you'd not argue that the article is implying that mice == spiders? That is indeed what that title implies: that the root causes are the same and that therefore both fears - and the subjects thereof - are equivalent. And that implication is not just wrong, but - I'd argue - deliberately misleading and in bad faith. And unsurprisingly, the people who disagree with that assessment are also apparently the ones who appear eager to frame said assessment as somehow "illogical" or "irrational" - you know, as is characteristic of bad-faith argumentation.
- monoideism 6y ago> Another good example of a title that tries to conflate two concepts and ends up being nonsense as a result. You must have really struggled with poetry in school.
- yellowapple 6y agoOn the contrary; Poetry at least makes sense, unlike those headlines.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]