The sky isnāt transparent itās translucent giving it a blue color. Revisit the dictionary.
Chicago is in America. There is also other chicagos in other places but YES Chicago is in America much like Paris is in France and another one is in Texas.
Palm trees arenāt grass. They are closer to grass than a tree. They arenāt trees.
yes. Now itās dark blue. The sky isnāt transparent. It isnāt clear. Itās translucent which scatters light and blurs it.
that wasnāt the question. Is Chicago in America? Yes. Are there Chicagoās not in America ? Also yes.
so the answer would be āfalseā they are not trees. They arent technically grass either just closer to grass. The answer remains the same. Palm trees arenāt trees.
do you really doubt I can give hundreds more direct examples.
You have exactly 2 options. You have a decision to make. You can keep chatting with me or stop chatting with me. Choose. Option a or option b.
Dudeā¦ I buy the new versions of both Websters and Oxford dictionary every time the release a new version lol. I do both in case Iām arguing with someone from London about the word āeveningā.
Iām profoundly boring. However like you said Iām very good at talking so it doesnāt sound so bad.
My point is I donāt need to look at Wikipedia or look anything up. I know what it means in America and in the UK. I know the slight deference between the us and uk definitions.
Iām not a bad ass, but if you want to argue semanticsā¦ boy youāre going to lose fast. You canāt be. I might be wrong about my opinions but I know the limits of the word.
At best you can say I offered myself a false situation, but again it was illustrative not literal.
That technically true but we always kind do live in a tyrannical oligarchy . Itās kinda always been that way.
So to be clear I understand what and why you are saying. I totally get that.
My choice wasnāt suppose to be taken at face value. It was me expressing the simple fact āIs it an option to not be under an oligarchy? Because I canāt find any place here or in the past that wasnāt a tyrannical oligarchy.
Thatās why I said what I said. I understand the point youāre making I just donāt agree.
Iād compare it to
Boss: be at work on Saturday or get fired. Whatās your choice?
Employee: thatās a false dillima because I could chose instead to be promoted to your boss
Boss: thatās not going to happen.
Of course there is technically a third option. Quit. But quitting because youāre about to get will be written as āfired ā in the paperwork.
Other options? Yes an infinite amount. But those options arenāt really feasible.
Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemmaā¦ by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least thatās a conversation.
You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.
Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees arenāt trees.
Itās like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.
You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.
Iām carrying on the conversation because itās hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. Iām dying to see what comes next.
I started this conversation with a sarcastic illustrative point to illuminate my view point. I very directly didnāt not ask anyone else to chose ANYTHING.
I said essentially āI see this, I choose thatā
Which is my opinions illustrated thru over simplification.
Thatās not me forcing anyone into a bottleneck.
A rhetorical question I asked only myself. I guess you could say Iām entertaining a FD myself, maybe. You canāt say Iām throttling your ability to choose things. I didnāt ask you anything, I didnāt present you with any options.
Iām myself am not ādying to seeā what comes next. I replied to you because Iām bored and Iām right. Thatās all.
It is funny to me you canāt see how clearly wrong you are on things. Do you want a YouTube video explaining the differences between transparent, translucent, and opaque? There are many available. Just let me know.
I gave two options to myself then answered. I never asked you anything.
lol Iām not angry at all just bored. Thank you for the complement though. Yes Iām a salesman and a damn good one. Iāve never had someone describe me as Loquacious, but itās a rarely used word. I knew it though if that was a test.
Anyway you are clearly balls deep in your histrionicsā¦ or maybe you just suffer from HPD in generalā¦
If thatās the way you want to see it. Good luck with those many other options that arenāt really there.
I know you believe āno thereās a third option of riding fluffy unicorns into the sunset!ā
No thereās isnāt. That has never been option.
As for the word my loquacious I guess I just mixed that while speed reading. Iām not really paying all that much attention to you. Iām not angry just bored.
My last reply I wrote to was from an ambulance. I was being rushed to the er because I was dying. See Iāve been so violently sick that I hadnāt been able to keep water down for 3 days. I actively dying.
I got bored in the 20 min ambulance ride to Brownsville so decided to brows Lemmy.
I can show you the doctors paperwork if you want proof but my point is :
No, I have never been angry or mad at you. Iām just having a conversation about something that interests me. Thatās litterly all. I donāt think youāre stupid I just disagree with you. Youāre free to disagree with me. Thatās perfectly fine.
Donāt take it so personally and buy a dictionary lol
Edit: that would also explain many of my mistakes while we talked. I was half delirious itās impressive I made coherent speech at all! Lol
Dude, you donāt even know the difference between a decision and a question.
And, just for fun.
The sky is transparent
Chicago is in Kwekwe
Palm trees are a grass.
The sky isnāt transparent itās translucent giving it a blue color. Revisit the dictionary.
Chicago is in America. There is also other chicagos in other places but YES Chicago is in America much like Paris is in France and another one is in Texas.
Palm trees arenāt grass. They are closer to grass than a tree. They arenāt trees.
Dictionary. Buy one.
Wait until night. Is the sky blue?
You can be in chicago and not in America.
Apart from their size, palm trees are nothing like trees.
These questions have absolutely no relationship with the topic of false dilemmas.
yes. Now itās dark blue. The sky isnāt transparent. It isnāt clear. Itās translucent which scatters light and blurs it.
that wasnāt the question. Is Chicago in America? Yes. Are there Chicagoās not in America ? Also yes.
so the answer would be āfalseā they are not trees. They arent technically grass either just closer to grass. The answer remains the same. Palm trees arenāt trees.
do you really doubt I can give hundreds more direct examples.
You have exactly 2 options. You have a decision to make. You can keep chatting with me or stop chatting with me. Choose. Option a or option b.
Read it. It is not about asking questions with binary answers.
Dudeā¦ I buy the new versions of both Websters and Oxford dictionary every time the release a new version lol. I do both in case Iām arguing with someone from London about the word āeveningā.
Iām profoundly boring. However like you said Iām very good at talking so it doesnāt sound so bad.
My point is I donāt need to look at Wikipedia or look anything up. I know what it means in America and in the UK. I know the slight deference between the us and uk definitions.
Iām not a bad ass, but if you want to argue semanticsā¦ boy youāre going to lose fast. You canāt be. I might be wrong about my opinions but I know the limits of the word.
At best you can say I offered myself a false situation, but again it was illustrative not literal.
For example, one choice you are missing is that you donāt have to live in a tyrannical oligarchy.
That technically true but we always kind do live in a tyrannical oligarchy . Itās kinda always been that way.
So to be clear I understand what and why you are saying. I totally get that.
My choice wasnāt suppose to be taken at face value. It was me expressing the simple fact āIs it an option to not be under an oligarchy? Because I canāt find any place here or in the past that wasnāt a tyrannical oligarchy.
Thatās why I said what I said. I understand the point youāre making I just donāt agree.
Iād compare it to
Boss: be at work on Saturday or get fired. Whatās your choice?
Employee: thatās a false dillima because I could chose instead to be promoted to your boss
Boss: thatās not going to happen.
Of course there is technically a third option. Quit. But quitting because youāre about to get will be written as āfired ā in the paperwork.
Other options? Yes an infinite amount. But those options arenāt really feasible.
Look buddy, if you want to make an argument that my joke I made is a false dilemmaā¦ by all means go ahead, the person before you already pushed that point with logic. I disagreed but at least thatās a conversation.
You dropped a Wikipedia link and bounced.
Then you respond just now with answers to my 2 choice questions ENTIRELY WRONG and the sad part is you looked up answers and still got them wrong while missing I specifically picked 2 that I thought were funny. The sky is translucent not blue. Palm trees arenāt trees.
Itās like every step you take is another pit-fall while you argue against my jokes. Get it together dude.
You started all this with a false binary argument. It is a low hand way of forcing your opinion on someone and I linked to Wikipedia because everyone should be able to spot it.
Iām carrying on the conversation because itās hilarious how bad you are at arguing. You try to give examples of binary decisions and end up asking questions that are ambiguous. Iām dying to see what comes next.
I started this conversation with a sarcastic illustrative point to illuminate my view point. I very directly didnāt not ask anyone else to chose ANYTHING.
I said essentially āI see this, I choose thatā
Which is my opinions illustrated thru over simplification.
Thatās not me forcing anyone into a bottleneck.
A rhetorical question I asked only myself. I guess you could say Iām entertaining a FD myself, maybe. You canāt say Iām throttling your ability to choose things. I didnāt ask you anything, I didnāt present you with any options.
Iām myself am not ādying to seeā what comes next. I replied to you because Iām bored and Iām right. Thatās all.
It is funny to me you canāt see how clearly wrong you are on things. Do you want a YouTube video explaining the differences between transparent, translucent, and opaque? There are many available. Just let me know.
You gave only 2 options to chose from which falsely represented the situation.
I succinctly pointed this out. You got angry and are now suffering from Logorrhea.
I gave two options to myself then answered. I never asked you anything.
lol Iām not angry at all just bored. Thank you for the complement though. Yes Iām a salesman and a damn good one. Iāve never had someone describe me as Loquacious, but itās a rarely used word. I knew it though if that was a test.
Anyway you are clearly balls deep in your histrionicsā¦ or maybe you just suffer from HPD in generalā¦
Yes. This is exactly what a false binary is. You presented a situation where more than 2 possibilities exist to put forward a false narrative.
You still havenāt. Iām implying you have written Diarrhea.
deleted by creator
If thatās the way you want to see it. Good luck with those many other options that arenāt really there.
I know you believe āno thereās a third option of riding fluffy unicorns into the sunset!ā
No thereās isnāt. That has never been option.
As for the word my loquacious I guess I just mixed that while speed reading. Iām not really paying all that much attention to you. Iām not angry just bored.
Want to know something funny?
My last reply I wrote to was from an ambulance. I was being rushed to the er because I was dying. See Iāve been so violently sick that I hadnāt been able to keep water down for 3 days. I actively dying.
I got bored in the 20 min ambulance ride to Brownsville so decided to brows Lemmy.
I can show you the doctors paperwork if you want proof but my point is :
No, I have never been angry or mad at you. Iām just having a conversation about something that interests me. Thatās litterly all. I donāt think youāre stupid I just disagree with you. Youāre free to disagree with me. Thatās perfectly fine.
Donāt take it so personally and buy a dictionary lol
Edit: that would also explain many of my mistakes while we talked. I was half delirious itās impressive I made coherent speech at all! Lol
Our recent conversation aside, I hope you are back on liquids and are now recovering.