Some boards of canada beautiful place and a couple unreleased tracks,
and soffmi muhod counterpart before, perhaps then the enthusiast, and then semble,
maybe later, some autechre LP5, and plus.
Maybe.
Or more soffmi muhod. or more boc.
I hear (~ from myself), boc is mother, autechre is father, and soffmi muhod is a child of music.
"Lemmy's a lot more popping than I expected it to be" said at the end of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0quq1ds4mDI but there's only this one comment (to KDE) 2 years ago... is this https://mastodon.social/users/linuxuserspace the right Linux User Space presence on Lemmy? Surely cant be... since there's not a lot popping here, and that's a mastodon link. Where you at, linux user space?
Reminds of how some self professed "anarchists" insist on capital punishment, like an unwitting opposame, to, e.g. nazis, not realising/admitting what they're really engaged in is another form of malarchy, not anarchy. Reminder, malarchism is not anarchism.
Just had wild (early/incomplete) notion of constructing the 3D version, with fallacies on one side, the opposite(?) of the fallacies on the other side, and on the back side, sorta the opposite of the front side, like, concessions and retractions...
Inspired by this context, and other comments here.
Took a while to contemplate how mere contradiction could be fallacious. It could be:
semantic strawman.
bare assertion fallacy.
argument from ignorance fallacy.
false dilemma.
appeal to emotion.
moving goal posts.
circular reasoning.
non sequitur. (... ghadamn! I spelled that correctly for the first time! (thnx to another lemmy user correcting me last time.))
bandwaggon fallacy.
red herring.
But, that was a good point to raise. On face value, it is at first difficult to see how mere contradiction can be fallacious.
(And I confess, only the first of those I came up with entirely by my self. The others were suggested by an LLM, with examples which I've omitted for brevity.)
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?
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.
Digit @ Digit @lemmy.wtf Posts 2Comments 90Joined 2 yr. ago
can clearly see how happy.
not happy.
if you know where (not) to look