this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
1387 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

31799 readers
4093 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 113 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nice try, thats a harry potter spell. You're not gonna fool me

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Homie really thought he was gonna slip it by ye

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

If you like debates, but don’t like stupid takes then you just like to stay sane

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Also perfectly valid in maths, and widely used

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't it just a type of straw man argument?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Only if you drink chocolate with a straw.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I believe they're talking about the responses, not the original post.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

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!

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

yeah that's a better analogy. lol @ the downvotes

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s also the dairy part

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

yeah but that's the last ingredient.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it is not true. Things can, and often are, worth more than the sum of their parts.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ok bro, well enjoy your sugar.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How are you not able to get this? Do you like coffee? It is 99% water.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My dude, may I recommend taking a conversation at a shitpost community less seriously?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can i get a citation (since we're debate lording) on what constitutes a "valid" argument and how this fits into that category?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.