4 ms·
It is still very much hyper-exaggerating, even if you can claim that you’re technically within the realm of plausibility. In my opinion, your post would have b
by wolfgang42 5y ago
It is still very much hyper-exaggerating, even if you can claim that you’re technically within the realm of plausibility.
In my opinion, your post would have been more engaging and less polarizing had you omitted that section altogether: the fantastical hypotheticals draw the reader’s attention away, and do not seem to add anything that more staid examples would not have offered while avoiding reducing the salience of your main argument.
- Edman274 5y agoIt is not hyper-exaggerating any more than "Falsehoods programmers believe about names" is. That post lists as a counterexample the unpronounceable name that Prince went as. It described a scenario where no one has names and people only refer to each other by familial relationships. It said that it cannot be assumed that people's names can be written down. If you're willing to use "falsehoods programmers believe about names" as a guide for implementing a system for storing names, then you have to be able to handle my cases too. If I'm hyper-exaggerating, then so is that blog post. If I'm committing some kind of slippery slope fallacy, then you need to tell me how my examples are materially different from the one in the blogpost and draw a line that is able to say "this fallacy is true and we should accommodate it, but this one isn't, and we shouldn't."