4 ms·

It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing.

by V-2 5y ago

It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing. The grandparent comment didn't challenge it, but asked rhetorically what [else] a mayor could do. This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me. Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least. As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. There is still some limit, though (obviously larger than 1, but nevertheless finite), and renaming a street always comes at a substantial cost - both for the city and private entities. Cost associated with the need for changing street name signs, changing documents etc. Maybe that cost is worth paying, but an ad absurdum line of argument isn't something that could convince me of it.

kergonath 5y ago
> It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing. This is demonstrably false. The change sends a message, which is certain to be heard. It also signals a position to the local population. You can argue it is not much, but it is not nothing. I would say the effect seems proportional to the amount of time needed to take such a decision. The actual context was that the mayor should do something useful instead of doing this, which is fallacious as she can do both. > This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me. Well yes, it would be fallacious. That's why I did not make that point, and instead referred only to this specific decision. Note that I did not even say that it was a good decision, just that the premise that doing it somehow prevented them from doing something else was flawed. > Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least. Municipal entities do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by and react to national and international politics. Particularly capitals with embassies and stuff. In a context of increased nationalism and cultural tensions, these things are bound to happen, even though as you say it's not necessarily effective or useful. Changing street names for some political reason really isn't new or remarkable. > As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. You should read the thread. Plenty of people are saying just that, and your comment implied it heavily in the context of the discussion. You seem to want to minimise the consequences and emphasise the costs of the decision. In reality, it does not do much, and does not cost much either.

by V-2 5y ago

kergonath 5y ago

> It's not a fallacy, unless you take it out of context. The context was as follows: the grand-grandparent comment pointed out that this change achieves nothing. This is demonstrably false. The change sends a message, which is certain to be heard. It also signals a position to the local population. You can argue it is not much, but it is not nothing. I would say the effect seems proportional to the amount of time needed to take such a decision. The actual context was that the mayor should do something useful instead of doing this, which is fallacious as she can do both. > This response implies that something had to be done (by the mayor) by definition, whether useful or not. And that's what's fallacious to me. Well yes, it would be fallacious. That's why I did not make that point, and instead referred only to this specific decision. Note that I did not even say that it was a good decision, just that the premise that doing it somehow prevented them from doing something else was flawed. > Municipal entities aren't really actors in international politics, and when they try playing such a role, the results tend to be dubious. That's my opinion at least. Municipal entities do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by and react to national and international politics. Particularly capitals with embassies and stuff. In a context of increased nationalism and cultural tensions, these things are bound to happen, even though as you say it's not necessarily effective or useful. Changing street names for some political reason really isn't new or remarkable. > As for your comment - that "people can make more than one decision in a year" - it, in turn, feels like a strawman argument to me, because noone said that they can't. You should read the thread. Plenty of people are saying just that, and your comment implied it heavily in the context of the discussion. You seem to want to minimise the consequences and emphasise the costs of the decision. In reality, it does not do much, and does not cost much either.