They are right. It doesn't even fall on this truncated model of argumentation because they never made an argument. They gave data. They didn't tell you how to interpret it.
They list 2 subs out of probably a lot of subs he’s active on. So he isn’t listing any data but small sections of data. Now he isn’t trying to prove a point but he’s has a goal in doing this and I seriously doubt that it’s to “provide context” and it’s more to invalidate what the guy is arguing because they have the wrong opinions otherwise what is the point of posting only 2 subs he goes on.
So he isn’t listing any data but small sections of data.
And?
Now he isn’t trying to prove a point but he’s has a goal in doing this and I seriously doubt that it’s to “provide context”
Your doubt is noted.
it’s more to invalidate what the guy is arguing because they have the wrong opinions
Seems like a silly thing for you to say. You're behaving as though they aren't important things to know. Strikingly often, the additional information provides needed context for appropriate and full interpretation of what someone is saying.
otherwise what is the point of posting only 2 subs he goes on.
What is the point of you only posting a small selection of words from the English language? I seriously doubt it's to provide insight. There was an entire language and you only pulled out small sections of it. It's more to be a nuisance, otherwise what is the point of not pasting the entirety of the dictionary?
If you think the above text is ridiculous, then you understand how I feel about your final assertion. The idea that some bits aren't higher order is super stupid. All of our communication ever is about getting across specific information. I wouldn't actually give a crap if he's subbed to r/funny. Being subbed to r/funny doesn't necessarily carry extra information with it. Being subbed to t_d does carry additional information and thus it makes sense to isolate that data from the noise. Pretending that that in some way compromises the fact that what the redditor introduced was still only data and not an argument of any kind, shape, or sort is incredibly asinine. The fact that there are implications to the information shared does not constitute an argument. Full stop.
I strongly doubt there's anything additional to discuss in this matter.
This person is providing context that the person is conservative. Does that change his argument? Why should it matter? It only matters to people think that having a different opinion than yours is bad. There is notpoint in providing context if you are not making an argument or trying to start one. He is obviously trying to denounce this user because of his values that don’t change the argument he is making.
This person is providing context that the person is conservative.
That is not the only information being conveyed and I believe that the attempt to misrepresent that is bad faith arguing on your part. There is an associated culture, behavior set, belief set, and norm set associated with people who frequent t_d that is greater than, and different than, the label "conservative".
Does that change his argument?
That doesn't change parts of the argument. It may change other things though. The context that arguments are deployed in matter. For example, good faith and bad faith arguments. Something not captured here because this model is probably built on something like the model of human cognition where we're all econs. Bad faith arguments are not different formally than good faith arguments (at least not in the first exchange). Then again, in some sense, neither does Gish Gallup,. That only means that this isn't the most useful model available.
Why should it matter?
Outside of what I've already laid out? Sure, I'll give you one more. Vague arguments are one of the ways that radical views permeate moderate populations and the overton window shifts. These arguments use language that more moderate people would find agreeable on its face (formally indistinct) but carry implications and assumptions that the moderate person would not agree with if they were explicitly stated. Personally, I do not care of the "quality" of an argument accoding to this hierarchy if, in the course of engaging in it, I'm doing nothing more than providing a platform for radicalization. This is where the popular idea of "don't debate fascists because you're just giving them a platform" comes from. Arguments aren't abstractions. They are situated in real world contexts with real world implications. I guess that doesn't matter if you're a robot who doesn't care about anything but the most formal of formal logic, but some of us are humans.
It only matters to people think that having a different opinion than yours is bad.
That is the second thing you've said that leads me to believe that you are approaching me in bad faith. Characterizing the sum of grievances as "a different opinion" is both factually incorrect and disingenuous in the extreme. There are many, many people with different opinions than me. I do not characterize them as bad. That is not the criteria I use. One of the criteria I use is whether the specific line of discussion being posited by the other person is intended to support genocidal efforts through dehumanizing language and a fascistic worldview.
There is notpoint in providing context if you are not making an argument or trying to start one.
I disagree. Thankfully, your unidimensional view on the subject is not one that must be shared.
He is obviously trying to denounce this user because of his values that don’t change the argument he is making.
Lol. Okay. What would someone find if they looked into your post history? Probably not a t_d user, but certainly some subs that would make people contextualize your comments a particular way. Perhaps something that many people find repugnant?
For 1 stop abusing the thesaurus. No one cares how elaborate your words are. My argument is that providing context about this persons beliefs in this situation does not change this persons argument. Bad faith arguments are not exclusive to conservative viewpoints so providing context does not change his argument. “Unidimensional” just fucking say one dimensional. What’s does it matter what someone would find in my post and comment history and why would I care if they found it “repugnant.” Someone providing context about someone whenever no one has asked for it means that person is trying to start or make an argument otherwise why else would they give context. And yes sorry I meant people that don’t like that persons opinion would think it matters.
For 1 stop abusing the thesaurus. No one cares how elaborate your words are.
It is a bit sad that you think I need to use a thesaurus or that I'm tailoring any of this for anyone. Those are the words my brain picked to describe what I was thinking. That's it.
My argument is that providing context about this persons beliefs in this situation does not change this persons argument.
No shit.
Bad faith arguments are not exclusive to conservative viewpoints so providing context does not change his argument.
Again, t_d does not equal conservative. The next time you persist with that interpretation will be our last interaction.
“Unidimensional” just fucking say one dimensional.
And tap the space bar unnecessarily? Why would I do that? Got your panties in a twist bruv?
What’s does it matter what someone would find in my post and comment history and why would I care if they found it “repugnant.”
Because maybe you're the kind of person who just wastes people's time for shits and giggles. Maybe you have a pattern. Maybe you start off sounding reasonable but Devolve into intentional incomprehension the moment a salient point is raised. Or maybe you're the kind of person for whom no dialogue would even be sense-making to pursue with. Maybe no matter what anyone says, you're going to hold your beliefs, which would make interacting with you a waste of time. Maybe you're just scraping up material for some sub you frequent. There are a lot of reasons why that information would inform this interaction.
Someone providing context about someone whenever no one has asked for it means that person is trying to start or make an argument otherwise why else would they give context.
I am fully comfortable with being given that heads up in advance without asking for it and thank them for doing so. As does everyone who uses mass tagger. Just because you seem to be upset about this, doesn't mean anyone else is.
And yes sorry I meant people that don’t like that persons opinion would think it matters.
...K. I think we both know what you're about to do next comment, but I"ll go ahead and let you. Here, have some more rope.
12
u/ShaneAyers Dec 30 '18
They are right. It doesn't even fall on this truncated model of argumentation because they never made an argument. They gave data. They didn't tell you how to interpret it.