3 ms·

> This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demons

> This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. Using wiki for Wikipedia, specifically because Wikipedia is a wiki, is the same kind of substitution as using plane for Boeing 737, because examples like these replace the specific with the general, which is incredibly common. > What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck". Whether a definite or indefinite article is used makes no difference here, they merely indicate whether identity is known, and when missing they are assumed: "(the) wiki is not a proper citation." In English, we often use the general group in which the object belongs to replace the object, such as "vehicle" for "truck," and "truck" for "Ford," or "Internet" for "website" and "website" for "reddit." I have not, in fact, invented any argument to attack, which is necessary for a straw man. > Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error. Here is your straw man. I have not made any bad faith arguments, so you've invented one to attack instead. > Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, Burger King is not a burger and Taco Shack is not a shack. You are suggesting that wiki is an abbreviation of Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia is a wiki your argument fails. And because these types of substitutions are common, the request was unreasonable.

cxr 4y ago
> Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile. > Burger King is not a burger Gee, it's almost as if I already covered that. > Taco Shack is not a shack Bizarre claim, and a clear example of the futility involved here.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile. Your accusation was vague and your reply here equally unsupportive. You may claim anything you like, but if your claim is unsupported then it is unconvincing.
  - cxr 4y ago
    Taco Shack is not a taco.* It certainly is a shack, however. To try to claim with a straight face that it's not (as you did here) is possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen someone make on HN, ever. Likewise, your defense that it's fine to arbitrarily omit "a"/"an" or "the" is what's truly unconvincing. To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers and, like the Taco Shack example, suggests a commitment to never admitting to being wrong and a prioritization of that commitment over the truth. * I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"

cxr 4y ago

> Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile. > Burger King is not a burger Gee, it's almost as if I already covered that. > Taco Shack is not a shack Bizarre claim, and a clear example of the futility involved here.

Maursault 4y ago
> For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile. Your accusation was vague and your reply here equally unsupportive. You may claim anything you like, but if your claim is unsupported then it is unconvincing.
- cxr 4y ago
  Taco Shack is not a taco.* It certainly is a shack, however. To try to claim with a straight face that it's not (as you did here) is possibly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen someone make on HN, ever. Likewise, your defense that it's fine to arbitrarily omit "a"/"an" or "the" is what's truly unconvincing. To say, "I took a bus here" is acceptable. To say, "I took the bus here" would also be acceptable. Saying, "I took bus here", however, is definitely not a reasonable way to construct a sentence, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary. At best, it's a forgivable mistake that you might encounter from a non-native speaker, but in no way is it standard English. To argue otherwise (again, as you have done here) is bonkers and, like the Taco Shack example, suggests a commitment to never admitting to being wrong and a prioritization of that commitment over the truth. * I suppose if we were operating under the rules that you insist exist, this could have been worded as "Taco Shack is not taco"