3 ms·

I wrote about what I literally see, not about what I assume: I see a top-level comment which itself contains no metaphors and which itself is not an argument bu

I wrote about what I literally see, not about what I assume: I see a top-level comment which itself contains no metaphors and which itself is not an argument but a recounting. Therefore, it's a non sequitur to consider any reply as exemplifying the fallacy being discussed. I'm able to defend the other user from nonsense regardless of whether I share their view (though I do, most likely).

emilfihlman 2y ago
My recounting informs of an issue, namely not accepting the argument (analogue illustrating the issue and argument), and then attacking the non-argument, ie the analogue instead of the argument. The reply to my post has the same issue, though yes in a wider adaptation. Not accepting a logically sound situation is the same as dismissing an analogue just because it's an analogue ("analogues are not arguments therefore not relevant"), and then presenting that I don't know how to use an analogue is about the same as attacking the analogue. If there's nonsense it's from you.
- hunter2_ 2y ago
  Ah! I've got it now. Lotsofpulp didn't literally commit the atrocity of shooting down a metaphor/analogue presented to them (despite your characterizing their reply as having run into that exact issue, which I'll finally concede I did assume to be an accusation of committing said issue) but they did defend doing so. You recalled a thing you see as common, and they explained why it's common, so of course they ran into that common thing, but merely in the sense of defending it, not in the sense of doing it. The meaning of language, English anyhow, does tend to be however it gets commonly interpreted. I think it's helpful to advocate for communication that achieves successful interpretation over that which doesn't, even if that which doesn't work ought to work. Many things are noble pursuits even if against the grain, but using language in unsuccessful ways isn't one of them due to its nature which favors agreeance of usage.

emilfihlman 2y ago

My recounting informs of an issue, namely not accepting the argument (analogue illustrating the issue and argument), and then attacking the non-argument, ie the analogue instead of the argument. The reply to my post has the same issue, though yes in a wider adaptation. Not accepting a logically sound situation is the same as dismissing an analogue just because it's an analogue ("analogues are not arguments therefore not relevant"), and then presenting that I don't know how to use an analogue is about the same as attacking the analogue. If there's nonsense it's from you.

hunter2_ 2y ago
Ah! I've got it now. Lotsofpulp didn't literally commit the atrocity of shooting down a metaphor/analogue presented to them (despite your characterizing their reply as having run into that exact issue, which I'll finally concede I did assume to be an accusation of committing said issue) but they did defend doing so. You recalled a thing you see as common, and they explained why it's common, so of course they ran into that common thing, but merely in the sense of defending it, not in the sense of doing it. The meaning of language, English anyhow, does tend to be however it gets commonly interpreted. I think it's helpful to advocate for communication that achieves successful interpretation over that which doesn't, even if that which doesn't work ought to work. Many things are noble pursuits even if against the grain, but using language in unsuccessful ways isn't one of them due to its nature which favors agreeance of usage.