3 ms·

So a strawman. You set up the premise, you set up your misunderstanding, and then expect everyone else to follow your misunderstanding. You've even redefined wh

So a strawman. You set up the premise, you set up your misunderstanding, and then expect everyone else to follow your misunderstanding. You've even redefined what a "fiscal conservative" would actually do (if you were the one defining it). Then you pulled in "libertarian" out of nowhere. Which is an obvious set up for another strawman, so lets lean into it. Whats a "libertarian"?

ben_w 2y ago
I have no skin in this because I don't live in the USA and don't want to, but no, everything in the comment you replied to falsifies "So a strawman". You can be wrong without being a strawman. When every example you have of X is Y, it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" — when you're wrong like that, it's a black swan.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > You can be wrong without being a strawman. Sometimes yes, but not always. > but if every example you have of X is Y Is that actually true though? Are you not assuming perfect rationality on behalf of the poster, and that they have an adequate sample size, which tends to be subject to who the individual associates with. > it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" That depends on the truth of the matter. >when you're wrong, it's a black swan. Only if the initial guess was correct. You may be describing appearances. That which cannot be seen does in fact exist, it just doesn't seem like it because it exists in a different realm, and how our culture is trained to think about such problems spaces.
- latency-guy2 2y ago
  > everything in the comment you replied to falsifies "So a strawman". No it doesn't, user exclaims their ignorance and your follow up emboldens their ignorance does not make a QED.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Does your understanding of reasoning consist solely of the dichotomy "every position is either a QED or a strawman"?
    - latency-guy2 2y ago
      Does yours? > When every example you have of X is Y, it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" — when you're wrong like that, it's a black swan. Either way, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, I hope you don't go around proclaiming you're the arbiter of all that's right in the world.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > Does yours? The very thing you quoted demonstrates that mine allows for people to make errors without condemning them as deliberately weak setups. > I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth If you do not like how your words are perceived by others, you should consider choosing them more carefully. Despite your lack of appreciation, this comment is one which I am still only able to read in a way which suggests that you are stuck with this false dichotomy: > No it doesn't, user exclaims their ignorance and your follow up emboldens their ignorance does not make a QED.
        latency-guy2 2y ago
        > The very thing you quoted demonstrates that mine allows for people to make errors without condemning them as deliberately weak setups. No. > If you do not like how your words are perceived by others, you should consider choosing them more carefully. Lets see, you deliberately trolling and being bad faith is somehow my issue. Interesting. > Despite your lack of appreciation, this comment is one which I am still only able to read in a way which suggests that you are stuck with this false dichotomy: No. You lack the fundamentals.

ben_w 2y ago

I have no skin in this because I don't live in the USA and don't want to, but no, everything in the comment you replied to falsifies "So a strawman". You can be wrong without being a strawman. When every example you have of X is Y, it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" — when you're wrong like that, it's a black swan.

mistermann 2y ago
> You can be wrong without being a strawman. Sometimes yes, but not always. > but if every example you have of X is Y Is that actually true though? Are you not assuming perfect rationality on behalf of the poster, and that they have an adequate sample size, which tends to be subject to who the individual associates with. > it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" That depends on the truth of the matter. >when you're wrong, it's a black swan. Only if the initial guess was correct. You may be describing appearances. That which cannot be seen does in fact exist, it just doesn't seem like it because it exists in a different realm, and how our culture is trained to think about such problems spaces.
latency-guy2 2y ago
> everything in the comment you replied to falsifies "So a strawman". No it doesn't, user exclaims their ignorance and your follow up emboldens their ignorance does not make a QED.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Does your understanding of reasoning consist solely of the dichotomy "every position is either a QED or a strawman"?
  - latency-guy2 2y ago
    Does yours? > When every example you have of X is Y, it's not a "strawman" to say "all X are Y" — when you're wrong like that, it's a black swan. Either way, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, I hope you don't go around proclaiming you're the arbiter of all that's right in the world.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > Does yours? The very thing you quoted demonstrates that mine allows for people to make errors without condemning them as deliberately weak setups. > I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth If you do not like how your words are perceived by others, you should consider choosing them more carefully. Despite your lack of appreciation, this comment is one which I am still only able to read in a way which suggests that you are stuck with this false dichotomy: > No it doesn't, user exclaims their ignorance and your follow up emboldens their ignorance does not make a QED.
      - latency-guy2 2y ago
        > The very thing you quoted demonstrates that mine allows for people to make errors without condemning them as deliberately weak setups. No. > If you do not like how your words are perceived by others, you should consider choosing them more carefully. Lets see, you deliberately trolling and being bad faith is somehow my issue. Interesting. > Despite your lack of appreciation, this comment is one which I am still only able to read in a way which suggests that you are stuck with this false dichotomy: No. You lack the fundamentals.