You're viewing a single thread.
-
fun fact: this is called "Reductio ad absurdum" and it's a valid strategy in debate/rethoric.
It works great when countering stupid shit that sounds logical but really isn't.
-
Nice try, thats a harry potter spell. You're not gonna fool me
-
Homie really thought he was gonna slip it by ye
-
-
If you like debates, but don’t like stupid takes then you just like to stay sane
-
Also perfectly valid in maths, and widely used
-
You can also refute it by inverting the logic. If you like milk chocolate but don't like eating a bowl full of sugar, you like chocolate more than sugar. Curious what the name for that would be.
-
Imho you inverted the arguments but not the logic. You're still using the same blend of false dichotomy and ig slippery slope.
So it would still be the same reductio ad absurdum
-
-
Isn't it just a type of straw man argument?
-
Only if you drink chocolate with a straw.
-
I believe they're talking about the responses, not the original post.
-
-
Which makes "debate" look a bit like a dog's breakfast. But we live in a society, nobody said science is perfect and, ultimately, personal judgment trumps everything.
-
can i get a citation (since we're debate lording) on what constitutes a "valid" argument and how this fits into that category?
-
Classical philosophy used it often,
The earlier dialogues of Plato (424–348 BCE), relating the discourses of Socrates, raised the use of reductio arguments to a formal dialectical method (elenchus), also called the Socratic method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
If you want a more modern source, here is a lecture on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iepg5Q4rBAQ&list=PLPnZfvKID1Sje5jWxt-4CSZD7bUI4gSPS&index=53
I can recommend the entire lecture. It's both entertaining and valuable.
-
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=Iepg5Q4rBAQ&list=PLPnZfvKID1Sje5jWxt-4CSZD7bUI4gSPS&index=53
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
-
-
-
The first statement is actully true though, there is more sugar in milk chocolate than chocolate. the others are all obviously incorrect, there is more pickles, more chicken etc.
-
It’s not true. You can like a product without liking all of its ingredients in their more pure form. I like bread, but I’m not a fan of choking down handfuls of flour or yeast.
-
but I'm not a fan of choking down handfuls of flour or yeast
You're missing out, but whatever. More for the rest of us!
-
-
In cooking, the result is greater than the sum of its parts, and ingredients strength matters more than raw volume. Here's a more direct example. You probably don't enjoy chugging raw vanilla extract, and vanilla extract is highly concentrated in a small volume. Just because you don't like the concentrated form and it makes up a small volume in recipes, doesn't mean you don't like vanilla.
-
yeah that's a better analogy. lol @ the downvotes
-
-
There’s also the dairy part
-
yeah but that's the last ingredient.
-
-
No it is not true. Things can, and often are, worth more than the sum of their parts.
-
ok bro, well enjoy your sugar.
-
How are you not able to get this? Do you like coffee? It is 99% water.
-
i don't understand your point. i simply pointed out that there is indeed more sugar in milk choc than chocolate. i don't think anyone can deny sugar isn't the first and most dominating flavour of milk chocolate. sure it hasa choc after-taste. The other examples were silly because they all referenced things that didn't have the dominant flavour or indeed the dominant ingredient they were attempting to mock.
Why you and apparently 19 others are butt hurt about the fact milk choc is mostly sugar both ingredient wise and flavour wise is frankly bizarre to me.
-
you must be on the spectrum
-
real mature
-
My dude, may I recommend taking a conversation at a shitpost community less seriously?
-
LOL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-