Is this a faithful recreation of the version of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement with 2 additional bottom levels?
how so?
Digit
joined 2 years ago
I was thinking of his noodliness
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?
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.
view more: next ›
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.)