4 ms·

The line you quoted from Pullman includes an absolute in it - 'never'. Thus it's completely valid to bring counter-examples against it when people then promote

by oska 4y ago

The line you quoted from Pullman includes an absolute in it - 'never'. Thus it's completely valid to bring counter-examples against it when people then promote his line as 'good advice'. If he'd said something like "I generally prefer not to disparage things that I once loved, even if I now no longer do", then I doubt people would take any issue with that statement.

wpietri 4y ago
We are not engaging in programming here; this is more akin to poetry. That something is good general advice is not changed if there are some exceptions. Indeed, every bit of pithy general advice I can think of has important unstated exceptions and concomitant counter-examples. It is valid to bring counter-examples as part of a discussion, and I did not say otherwise. But I don't think it's "valid" to take a sentence, go off half cocked, and take it to an absurd and erroneous conclusion that contradicts the author's plain intent. If I'm highlighting a particularly valuable part of the article, I don't think I should have to quote the whole article in a comment just to prevent somebody taking it over-literally and out of context. And I will note that what you did in rewriting the generalized statement is exactly how most people understand apparently most absolute statements. Nobody thinks that "a stitch in time saves nine" is literally asserting a precise 9x relationship between maintenance effort and waste avoided. It can be fun to be over-literal as part of making a joke, but when it is only in the service of misunderstanding the actual point, it's just tedious and annoying.
- oska 4y ago
  Quick reply to point out that the saying you referenced is "a stitch in time saves nine" and not "a stitch in time always saves nine". By including never in what he said, Pullman was being unnecessarily bombastic, in my opinion, especially when there are egregious counter-examples to what he was saying such as having loved a person who did you a tremendous harm (some sort of abusive relationship) and then, following his advice, remaining silent about that harmful person because your love was 'once real'.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    As a programmer, I understand why programmers are prone to tediously over-literal thinking. Sometimes I do it myself. I just don't think it's helpful here.

by oska 4y ago

wpietri 4y ago

We are not engaging in programming here; this is more akin to poetry. That something is good general advice is not changed if there are some exceptions. Indeed, every bit of pithy general advice I can think of has important unstated exceptions and concomitant counter-examples. It is valid to bring counter-examples as part of a discussion, and I did not say otherwise. But I don't think it's "valid" to take a sentence, go off half cocked, and take it to an absurd and erroneous conclusion that contradicts the author's plain intent. If I'm highlighting a particularly valuable part of the article, I don't think I should have to quote the whole article in a comment just to prevent somebody taking it over-literally and out of context. And I will note that what you did in rewriting the generalized statement is exactly how most people understand apparently most absolute statements. Nobody thinks that "a stitch in time saves nine" is literally asserting a precise 9x relationship between maintenance effort and waste avoided. It can be fun to be over-literal as part of making a joke, but when it is only in the service of misunderstanding the actual point, it's just tedious and annoying.

oska 4y ago
Quick reply to point out that the saying you referenced is "a stitch in time saves nine" and not "a stitch in time always saves nine". By including never in what he said, Pullman was being unnecessarily bombastic, in my opinion, especially when there are egregious counter-examples to what he was saying such as having loved a person who did you a tremendous harm (some sort of abusive relationship) and then, following his advice, remaining silent about that harmful person because your love was 'once real'.
- wpietri 4y ago
  As a programmer, I understand why programmers are prone to tediously over-literal thinking. Sometimes I do it myself. I just don't think it's helpful here.