1·
5 days agohow so?
Digit
techno hippie
- 1 Post
- 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: October 29th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Do you know of any browsers that would not render
<html>simple site</html>?I just tested it in brave, dillo, librewolf, links, and it works in each.
I only recently discovered this (that contrary to prior belief and training), even
<body>is unnecessary.
Nope.
But I’d still love to hear what credence is behind your metagaming introduction assertion.
For the original version, nearer true, since suppression may take time and effort, or none, similarly with violence. Even then, arguing tone seems to always take more time and effort than mere contradiction.
I suppose fallacies could exist at any level… … except the bottom two (since they’re not really offering an argument at all)… and perhaps, arguably, at the top. That’s a tricky one though… could a point be centrally refuted, fallaciously?
At the browser level?
Otherwise,
can haz
<html>simple site</html>
You’ve introduced metagaming.
???
I’m not sure you’re aware what’s happening here.
You’ve introduced
This is an attempt at a re-creation of someone else’s extended version. As noted in the text in the image, and in my other post here (which in hindsight (especially after seeing this comment) I think I should have included in the original post, and put my question in the title.)
It’s an interesting thing you’ve created, but it’s not the same kind of thing.
Like I say, I’m not sure you’re aware of what’s happening here.
If you are, then please, by all means, if you have access to the original extended version this is a re-creation of, please share it, so we can compare where I went wrong. (I re-created it as faithfully as I could from memory, after exhausting myself on several attempts to find it again.)
If not, and you thought this extended version is entirely created by me, then let this reply be a correction, refuting that.
Also… re:
metagaming
it’s not the same kind of thing.
I’d like to know more about your thoughts and feelings on this, as it’s not clear to me how you think this is so, and is not apparent to me how the original 2-layer-extended version I’ve copied from memory is doing this.
To my thinking this extended version seems exactly in the same spirit of Paul Graham’s original, adding necessary extension to cover further levels by which some people seek to win arguments by worse means than mere name-calling.
But like I say, I’d love to hear more about your perceptions of this is being in error, and it being “metagaming”, and “not the same kind of thing”. If you can, for those of us to whom that nuanced insight’s not apparent, may you please elaborate on that?
Wouldn’t that merely be responding to tone?
We can.
Yup, it is problematic when others keep their arguments nearer the bottom. But at least your argument will have been valid. Even if they do attempt childish suppression.
One can even reference Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and some will still remain on the attack at the bottom. As just happened to me on another thread on lemmy. It harms their credibility, and their cognitive ability.
The chart does not cover fallacies like strawman arguments. Perhaps that’s around a corner of the “pyramid”, on a side not shown.
Could be not even on the chart, or could be suppression.
Orwellian language of the oppressor. But beyond that, yes.
Hah! I didn’t even notice the missing r, even after seeing the more recent saute joke from someone else. N1
And I don’t personally see any fucking reason to own a copy of my music.
And reading that was when I stopped moving the cursor to the upvote arrow. ;-)
But that’s fine, so long as when you own nothing, you’re happy. ;-) /s
I see owning a copy of arts as performing part of a duty to the future, increasing the resilience against the book burners and history re-writers.
I have the music I made on my computer ~ well, technically on my external storage hard drive. And so, I don’t need to stream my music. ;-)
But then, some argue such things as https://soffmimuhod.bandcamp.com/ may not even qualify as music.
Hope better, higher.
Hopefully you can raise it to centrally refuting the point.
Or at least to counterargument, above mere contradiction.
that pyramid makes it look like debate is build on a foundation of violence
A point to raise with Paul Graham (or whoever first depicted it as a “pyramid” graphic), for his appearing like debate is built on a foundation of name-calling.
I ask, because, I’m not sure if the 2nd from bottom level was called “suppression”, nor am I sure (at all) what was the elaboration in the “violence” layer. … But I hope I’ve at least remained faithful to the spirit of it. Eager to hear any corrections. Or even, if anyone finds the original extended version, that would be great to compare to.
Took a while to contemplate how mere contradiction could be fallacious. It could be:
But, that was a good point to raise. On face value, it is at first difficult to see how mere contradiction can be fallacious.
(And I confess, only the first of those I came up with entirely by my self. The others were suggested by an LLM, with examples which I’ve omitted for brevity.)