211–220 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is textbook no true scotsman fallacy, you're aware, right?
And? Doesn't mean it's not true. It just means you can't use it to win an argument against a nerd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doesn't mean it's not true. True, it just means that it's idiotic, rather.
oof I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy, let me just consult the manual here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good faith argumentation, or really argumentation in general, went out the window when you started treating whether syntax matters (for this language and in general) as a universal truth / (binary) logical statement rather than just an opinion.
One of the greatest problems in argumentation over the internet is that people gravitate towards acting as if every statement is intended to define a universal truth so they can argue against that strawman.
P.S. "please do flag and downvote rather."
I don't have that capability, else I would certainly use it.
"Surely you can appreciate that their comment was not written in agreement with or support for you"
No, I disagree; I think that is exactly what it was--the subject of the comment was your comment, not mine--you wrote of my statement as being a universal truth, not v.v.
Unsurprisingly, on every point where you and I disagree, I think that I am right and you are wrong.
I think it is best that, from now on, neither of us speak to or about each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People like to make themselves sound smart and important by finding the most trivial and low effort ways to discount and invalidate your point, instead of expending effort to respond to a more substantial argument that I could easily read from what you wrote. It's just the nature of online forums I think. It's easy (but incorrect) to conclude this place is full of jerks, because sometimes jerks are more likely to res…
Yes, thank you. I found the amount of bad faith in the responses is really rather shocking, but you have a good point about self-selection.
I wish these language websites would put an example of some code right there on the homepage so I can see what the language "feels" like. I finally found some code in the tutorials https://tutorial.ponylang.io/getting-started/hello-world
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good faith argumentation, or really argumentation in general, went out the window when you started treating whether syntax matters (for this language and in general) as a universal truth / (binary) logical statement rather than just an opinion.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
oof I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy, let me just consult the manual here...
Speaking of fallacies, it's complete nonsense (not the only example of it from that source) to say that the comment in question was a True Scotsman Fallacy (or any other kind of fallacy). Saying that a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge is very different from saying that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
And so no,
> Saying that a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge is very different from saying that no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
I categorically disagree that these would be meaningfully distinct claims, as the "[only] a certain kind of Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge" bit specifically invokes the implicit disqualification of said Scotsman from being counted as a True Scotsman.
> not the only example of it from that source
Pretty ironic of you to say that.
[0] the literal definition of the no true scotsman fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is textbook no true scotsman fallacy, you're aware, right?
It's really more of an inversion. No true Scotsman is "No Scotsman would ever (commit murder)" "What about (Scotsman that committed murder)?" "Ok, no true Scotsman would commit murder" Whereas this follows the form more of "Murder is bad" "I dunno, a lot of Scotsmen commit murder" "Ok, but no true Scotsman would commit murder" It's the same (annoying) assertion, but the fundamental argument is about the value of murd…
It's why I called it an outright textbook example: it's an appeal to purity, where purity is determined in a circular way - the very definition of the no true scotsman fallacy, as far as I could find and understand it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the greatest problems in argumentation over the internet is that people gravitate towards acting as if every statement is intended to define a universal truth so they can argue against that strawman.
Indeed; thank you. That's certainly what happened here, together with ad hominem whataboutism. P.S. "please do flag and downvote rather." I don't have that capability, else I would certainly use it. "Surely you can appreciate that their comment was not written in agreement with or support for you" No, I disagree; I think that is exactly what it was--the subject of the comment was your comment, not mine--you wrote of…