5 ms·

John Oliver is a comedian. Referring to him as a source isn't something that gives merit to an argument.

by seneca 4y ago

antisthenes 4y ago
What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals.
- seneca 4y ago
  > What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. That's not really the point. I'm not disputing the correctness, I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. A comedian, even one playing as a social crusader, is not a source, much like my cat is not. > If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals. Do you mean counterarguments? Counterfactuals are things that didn't happen or are not true, not a response to an assertion.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    > I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. I think we just have a different approach to communication. If you told me "the sky is blue, my cat told me so", I would probably just verify the color of the sky and completely disregard the 2nd portion. And no, that doesn't make your response flawed, because it mentioned a cat. It just makes it padded with irrelevant information. Part of comprehension is filtering irrelevant stuff like that from text in order to arrive at distilled facts that can be checked or verified through an experiment. Same way that my mentioning John Oliver doesn't really impact the weight of my arguments, since the facts within accurately reflect reality. It was just an irrelevant padding for context, not something that was supposed to give extra weight to my arguments. Does that make sense?
    - seneca 4y ago
      Yes, that makes sense, and is fair enough. Can you see how that stands out as a strange decoration on an otherwise sound argument though, and why someone may point it out? I also feel the need to acknowledge that I'm slightly entertained to be conversing with "antisthenes" under the handle "seneca".

John Oliver is a comedian. Referring to him as a source isn't something that gives merit to an argument.

by seneca 4y ago

John Oliver is a comedian. Referring to him as a source isn't something that gives merit to an argument.

What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals.

seneca 4y ago
> What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. That's not really the point. I'm not disputing the correctness, I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. A comedian, even one playing as a social crusader, is not a source, much like my cat is not. > If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals. Do you mean counterarguments? Counterfactuals are things that didn't happen or are not true, not a response to an assertion.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  > I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. I think we just have a different approach to communication. If you told me "the sky is blue, my cat told me so", I would probably just verify the color of the sky and completely disregard the 2nd portion. And no, that doesn't make your response flawed, because it mentioned a cat. It just makes it padded with irrelevant information. Part of comprehension is filtering irrelevant stuff like that from text in order to arrive at distilled facts that can be checked or verified through an experiment. Same way that my mentioning John Oliver doesn't really impact the weight of my arguments, since the facts within accurately reflect reality. It was just an irrelevant padding for context, not something that was supposed to give extra weight to my arguments. Does that make sense?
  - seneca 4y ago
    Yes, that makes sense, and is fair enough. Can you see how that stands out as a strange decoration on an otherwise sound argument though, and why someone may point it out? I also feel the need to acknowledge that I'm slightly entertained to be conversing with "antisthenes" under the handle "seneca".