techno hippie
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?
We can.
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.
The chart does not cover fallacies like strawman arguments. Perhaps that’s around a corner of the “pyramid”, on a side not shown.
Could be not even on the chart, or could be suppression.
Orwellian language of the oppressor. But beyond that, yes.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
sometimes there comes a point where all parties realize that there’s just no common ground, or what little there is has been charted. You say one last thing, then it ends.
I suspect (or perhaps am being wishfully optimistic), this may be confirmation bias, and that common ground and progressing dialogue can be rediscovered.
whittled me down to agree after all? That’s where it becomes slightly abusive* imho.
We are each not our arguments, and it serves the dialogue and exploration/search for truth, to rest in this non-attachment. But yes, there’s much risk of misfortune and succumbing to compellingly argued wrongness, failing to find adequate counterargument in a timely manner.
Hah! I didn’t even notice the missing r, even after seeing the more recent saute joke from someone else. N1
And I don’t personally see any fucking reason to own a copy of my music.
And reading that was when I stopped moving the cursor to the upvote arrow. ;-)
But that’s fine, so long as when you own nothing, you’re happy. ;-) /s
I see owning a copy of arts as performing part of a duty to the future, increasing the resilience against the book burners and history re-writers.
I have the music I made on my computer ~ well, technically on my external storage hard drive. And so, I don’t need to stream my music. ;-)
But then, some argue such things as https://soffmimuhod.bandcamp.com/ may not even qualify as music.
Hope better, higher.
Hopefully you can raise it to centrally refuting the point.
Or at least to counterargument, above mere contradiction.
Total sidetrack and total missing the point.
I didn’t say “taxes are good” or “current education is good”.
The problem I posed is that knowledge transfer is an essential skill and people who are bad at it are–I would suppose–both oblivious to it and easier to take advantage of.
Edit: TBH your comment is so whacky and on your own terms I didn’t even read to the end section. It’s not even left field, it’s 2 counties over.
Edit 2: Now I read it in full and, bro, that’s a bunch of potentially well meaning conspiratorial retardation. Just no.
You are unfortunately, literally pictured in the OP meme with a veneer of “I’m 14 and this is deep”.
Fun to see such a retort, on same day as I posted a re-creation of the extended version of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement.
Starts with a non-sequitor, follows with an apparent strawman argument refuting an accusation not made, then a “not even wrong”, then arguing tone coupled with a celebration of ignorance and unwitting mischaracterisation, ending on two ad-hominems. XD See? Epistemology’s fun.
I was thinking of his noodliness