this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
709 points (95.2% liked)

Memes

45660 readers
1130 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not. I didn't realise people would be so confused by analogies.

I compared the rhetoric. That's the point of such devices. You don't have to be a racist to use similar logic to them.

This isn't complicated whatsoever.

The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How deep are you willing to go before you admit you made a dumbass comparison?

Look, I can pretend I'm smart by invoking latin shit too: adversus solem ne loquitor

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Explain how the comparison is "dumbass", or admit you're just wrong.

Anyone can just make claims without justifying them. I claim trees speak German. I will elaborate no further!

pretend I’m smart by invoking latin shit too:

Um, you think that's all I was doing there? Just saying random Latin?

You do realise this is just... you admitting you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is?

And you're acting like that proves anything other than that you're ill-equipped to discuss rhetoric?

I'll explain: reductio ad absurdum is a common rhetorical device whereby you take someone's logic, and apply it to the most extreme example, to show how the logic fails. It literally means "reduction to the absurd".

Here's an example:

What you just did now? Saying "I can invoke random Latin shit"? That's like you, in court, objecting to a lawyer using the term "mens rea", and saying they're just "invoking latin shit", because you don't realise it is in fact a common term in that context, and instead think they're just showing off.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Psst, let me share a little secret. What I said wasn't random it's another phrase debatelords like yourself use to pretend they are very cool and logical, but I love how eager you were to flaunt your knowledge of something with a very obvious meaning. I thought it was poignant to someone trying to argue some of the most stupid shit I've ever heard, and you can say ad hominem to that.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Have you stopped even trying to make a point?

What I said wasn’t random it’s another phrase debatelords like yourself use to pretend they are very cool and logical

What? "I can invoke latin shit too?" You were trying to wield that against me in a "look, this is how you look" kinda move? When I never did that or anything like that? Well, cool. I hope you had fun, but it was a waste of time.

I love how eager you were to flaunt your knowledge of something with a very obvious meaning

I'm not "flaunting" I'm explaining, because it appeared to be a roadblock for you. You didn't respond to it, but simply point at it and the fact it was Latin. You gave every indication of being stumped. Should I instead have just mocked you and allowed the conversation to come to a standstill? I was trying to explain my point to you.

This isn't a fucking fight. It's a conversation. I'm trying to be even-handed and fair, here.

I thought it was poignant to someone trying to argue some of the most stupid shit I’ve ever heard, and you can say ad hominem to that.

I'm not sure you're using "poignant" correctly, there. But nothing about this comment I'm responding to makes any sense whatsoever in context, so that's just par for the course, it seems.

Also, why would I call that an ad hominem? Your guesses and estimations about me thus far have been completely off the mark, so what makes you think this one will hit?


All that said, are you ready to get back on topic?

The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not reading all that but I'm happy for you

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.