this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
435 points (97.6% liked)
Funny
6923 readers
825 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That just sounds like philosopher dribble peddled to make sad people feel better.
You can very well know happiness without sadness. It's called ignorance and from what I've heard it's bliss.
Most the ignorant people I know are the most angry, miserable people I've ever met, so idk maybe that's bullshit too
Are they ignorant or all their "knowledge" just revolve in being racist and an asshole?, a truly ignorant person would be like a toddler no? Without racism and such
Being a toddler is traumatic! They have no knowledge of the world around them and it's frequently terrifying. Why do you think young children cry so much? Ignorance is scary.
It's not about knowing. It's about appreciating.
It is possible to know one without the other, however the first experience becomes the baseline upon which other experiences are compared and measured against forming a spectrum.
Take a baby for instance, early in life they are exposed to milk, the feeling of being close to their parents during feeding and the feeling of a full stomach (happiness). However, this becomes the reference point to compare feelings of being alone and hungry (sadness).
If a child experiences nothing but absent parents and malnutrition, the child will not know it is sad because there is no comparative reference point. Its just normal.
Another example, a long time ago when life expectancy was much lower and daily life was very hard, the circumstances needed to feel happiness were much lower. A woman living a hard life in an isolated wilderness suddenly receives a fine dress from a distant city and, compared to her daily harsh reality, it brings her extreme happiness.
Compare that to modern times where daily life is much easier and we have access to almost anything we want. Not surprisingly, people find it harder to find happiness. Why? Because they don't have the comparative negative baseline.
What do we call this, an Appeal to Balance fallacy?
False Balance or Appeal to People, which one are you referring to?
Are those like, official ones? I was making a name up
Common fallacies are well documented with generally similar names. Might be worth reading up on them so that when you label something a fallacy, you are doing so from an informed position. Labelling something a fallacy, without understanding whether it is or isn't, is a subtle form of disinformation.
That's a rather rigid view of rhetoric. I know common fallacies have been documented (mostly in infographic form) but the way that you categorize them and how you define them isn't some immutable law of the universe, and neither are their names. Collections of fallacies aren't very reliable. More official sources exist but they don't tend to name very specific fallacies.
Anyways, what really bothers me is this:
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding that I cannot allow. Something isn't a fallacy because some guy said it is; that, ironically, is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy(TM). Memorizing a list of fallacies by name does not teach you what a fallacy is and it certainly doesn't grant you understanding like you claim. The list doesn't decide what a fallacy is. A logical fallacy is simply a mistake or nonrigorous section in an argument that follows a common pattern. If you can identify the pattern, and you can identify that it's not logically sound, you can call it a fallacy. That's not disinformation just because you didn't read about it on logicalfallacies.com.
If only you had put this much effort and consideration into your original post. Was it fun shuffling through your vocabulary for maximum effect?
That's because my original post was casual conversation, and this response was part of an argument. If I want to be clear in an argument I have to be more specific, which means choosing my words carefully. I'm not posing lmao, the most complicated word there is probably "nonrigorous" and that's really not that hard. Anyways, since you neglected to respond to the actual content of my argument and decided to act in bad faith, I'm done here.