Black tea refers to the visible degree of oxidation of the tea leaves - yellow, white and green teas all do the same thing. Similarly, white grapes are called that because they produce white (clear) liquid (though it’s clearly yellowish so they should really be called yellow grapes…).

What? They’ve been talking about features that are now being called the “kill switch” for the better part of a year. Literally all they did that’s new was give it a dumb name.

Thank you! I very much appreciate the kind words. I hope you have a very good day!

You aren’t debating. You have nothing to add.

Yes, correct. I am glad you are willing to admit you understand.

baseless observation

It is not baseless - you confirmed it was an entirely accurate assertion of your behavior.

But if you insist on just rehashing your own opinion as some infallible fact

It’s not just my opinion, it’s yours as well.

If you want to actually have a discussion

We are having a discussion. Not the one you want to have on this topic, but a discussion nonetheless.

or debate the topic - I’m still happy to engage on that.

Yes that is evident - but there’s nothing about the topic to debate, something you appear to be aware of, so I must once again conclude this is probably a dishonest attempt to engage in a debate and, once again, politely decline your offer.

I continue to have nothing I need to add, and I am grateful you appear to be understanding that now. Unfortunately I was correct about the value of your subsequent comments, so hopefully this can be resolved soon with the minimum of additional embarrassment for you.

Huh, I thought those were largely a commonwealth thing - like the cart returns where you have to give them a coin before they’ll unlock themselves. I’ve never seen one in the US, though there are a few one-way gates at stores near me (they don’t appear to do anything though, just prevent you from going out the wrong door - I think they’re just there as traffic management, they’re not active)

Don’t worry, this is what passes as cathartic for me. The fish are all happily getting into the barrel and begging me to shoot them, it’s more fun that I’ve had in…
…
oh no, I’ve made myself sad.

Nothing in the linked composition fallacy comment you responded to used words all or always. You kept assuming a universal generalization where it wasn’t indicated.

I was using “all” for brevity’s sake - as an illustrative example it was imprecise, but that is the goal of illustrative examples - the reasoning was sound, the wording was intentionally imprecise to prevent the reasoning getting lost in pages of verbiage. If that caused confusion I apologize, that was not my intent, but it seemed to be understood by most of the audience and by the person I was engaging with directly.

While your explanation of it’s mechanics is correct, the situation in the comic isn’t what the division fallacy describes. If a group, as in the comic, consists entirely of people who say X and that group expresses Y, at least one member of that group must (by an almost tautological application of the Pigeonhole Principle) say both X & Y. This is the claim damnedFurry was making, that nobody who says X also says Y (an argument which they later very respectfully dropped after they were shown evidence that their initial premise was fundamentally wrong).

Due to the fallacies, the comic’s generalization doesn’t validly follow from the premises in the comment.

Correct - the premises in the comment misrepresent those in the comic. They are giving a good example of a fallacy, but that fallacy is simply not present in the comic.

No valid or strong evidence has been provided for the comic’s generalization

Evidence it does not even need to provide if it’s, as for so many women, descriptive and not (as furry was attempting to claim) assertive.

On the other hand, wishful thinking, stereotyping, being superstitious, rationalizing, and having a poor sense of proportion also are sources of potential error and are included in the list below, though they would not be included in the lists of some researchers.

This argument is deductively valid, but it’s unsound because it rests on a false, stereotypical premise.

The source you provide does a very good job of explaining that it’s not a fallacy, it is an example of unsound reasoning.

An argument from fallacy concludes the fallacy’s conclusion is false. That didn’t happen here.

So then are you saying the conclusions of the comic (as drawn by damnfurry) are true? Because I would still disagree - the conclusions the comic makes are not the ones furry claims it’s making.

If you’ve nothing to discuss

I’ve plenty to discuss. That’s why we’ve been having an ongoing discussion about my initial topic for more than a day now.

the difficult conclusion that my own assertion is correct.

It wasn’t difficult to arrive there, you yourself confirmed it was correct.

The pure contradiction

There has been no contradiction. You (unfortunately I must suspect intentionally given your past admissions) misunderstand - clarifying the situation while you attempt to erode the surrounding discussion adds nothing to my points here. I’ve already said all I need to say in support of that topic, the rest of this is just reiterating those same points.

I’m here to explain that concept, as you have continued to engage as though you may not understand it. And because you are providing a mountain of examples of how someone acting in bad faith might attempt to draw another party into engaging with them on their terms, and that’s interesting. Less interesting now that I have clarified that point, of course - your responses will be inherently less valuable because you’re aware of that regardless of your motivations - but that’s a sacrifice I’m quite happy to make in the interests of furthering your understanding in this discussion.

To summarize: I’ve added nothing to my initial points because there is nothing I need to add. Every subsequent reply I’ve made has been to explain this, and the reasons for this, to you. I am quite happy to continue doing this as long as you would like.

Okay.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, my reasoning is consistant across both this and the linked comment; was that what you meant to link to? My entire point has been that generalizations are not inherengly universal, and the ones in the comic especially so. Which you appear to agree with? I’m genuinely confused.

That reasoning also runs counter to the greviances DamnedFurry was expressing with the comic.

And you’re expressing yet more fallacies, without establishing the applicability of those falacies to the situation. Nor are stereotypes a fallacy (what??), and neither is this a fallacy of composition or a faulty generalization.

However the implication that the existance of fallacies renders the conclusions of the comic invalid is a hilariously classic example of an argument from fallacy so there’s that…

In most debates

This isn’t a debate. I’m not attempting to persuade you. This is a discussion. I am criticizing you. I am discussing your initial and subsequent behavior that is self-evident in this discussion in a critical manner.

You cannot win, nor lose, a discussion - that just doesnt make sense - and that is in no small measure why I’ve refused to engage with you when you bring in unrelated topics to debate. Allowing a debate to expand from the initial topic could allow someone, acting in bad faith, to conflate the new debate topics and the initial discussion topic (my criticism) as being inherently linked, and thus imply they are points that someone could “win” or “lose”.

I have no interest in this discussion becoming a debate - I have made my assertions, have maintained those assertions consistently and those assertions have since been shown to be completely validated. There continues to be nothing that I need to add to that.

I’ve found Rhodia is very inconsistent with their production quality (and I don’t love waxed papers), but for flip notebooks/sketchbooks they’re a solid choice.

For calligraphy, Tomoe River is a classic (even after the whole sanzen drama its still great paper), but I also really love Iroful, Canson Imagine 200gsm, and any of the Strathmore Mixed Media papers. It depends on the ink I’m using and the effect I’m going for, really, but if I had to pick one Iroful is probably the best all-round calligraphy paper (better shading than TR but with less impressive sheening)

There’s been no psychoanalysis, cyclical or otherwise, occuring here. Simply a recounting of your directly observable behavior and the things you have said.

I have repeatedly emphasized how, in this discussion, I have stayed on the single topic of criticizing your behavior. You have already admitted that you have approached these discussions in bad faith. As a result I’m not interested in entertaining what I am unfortunately forced to consider might be, given your earlier admissions, less-than-genuine attempts to engage in discussion.

It’s not my opinion that you do things like that, its your own stated position. I don’t enjoy having to assume you’re not acting in good faith, but when you admit you don’t engage in good faith, the only reasonable thing for me to do is to assume you were telling the truth.

Again, my intial justified criticism of your behavior is the topic here, and once again that’s the sole topic I am willing to entertain in this discussion.

Words and context

And from these basic parts we derive all language.

While engaging with you here, the discussion has never been anything other than about my criticism of your behavior. I have never expressed an opinion of you beyond your behavior being that of a redditor (and criticisms of it stemming therefrom). Neither were my initial criticisms “baseless” - you confirmed they were completely accurate yourself. The focus has not increased, nor has there been an opportunity for you to guide me back on topic, because I have never departed from this topic - despite you repeatedly presenting new topics, which I have not engaged with as they are not relevant.

If you take a recounting of your behavior as somehow an expression of an opinion, I would suggest you modify your behavior so that when presented with it you do not feel the need to be defensive.

Again, my criticism of you has remained the only topic, and it has remained fully justified.

(Forgive me if there’s a delay in explaining this again, I’m going to go read a book for a while so I will not be checking my notifications for a bit.)

This line of discussion has never been about your ideas

No, this is still true; while you have been attempting to insert your ideas into a discussion about your behavior, this discussion has never been about your ideas, only your behavior. Even my one concession to discussing your ideas, asking you to tally the numbers of comments presenting in the way you describe, was entirely said in support of the discussion of your behavior.

You’ve also continued not to engage in good faith, for example you’re now trying to present my staying focused on one topic of discussion as being somehow “cyclical” as a way to present yourself as above this discussion. You also attempt to characterize your admission that you were trying to manipulate me as “just a joke”.

To reiterate the point: the initial criticism is and remains absolutely accurate, by your own admission.

Alright, but you’re literally doing the exact same thing right here. You’re using a generalization about a group to make conclusions about the behavior of that group.

Its not subtle behaviour.

In reference to members of a group engaging in negative behavior, you characterize those people who engage in that behavior negatively. I’m a person, and I resent the implication that I might also unfairly dogpile someone discussing this topic based off the actions of this group.

(edit: clarity)

I’ve been into calligraphy for years now - it’s a wonderful hobby with anywhere between absolutely none (pseudocalligraphy with a pencil/bic) and a very low cost to entry (blackletter with a parallel pen) that I seriously encourage anyone to try out! Just be warned that it’s a gateway drug to the fountain pen hobby, which uh.
…
…
quickly becomes a not-cheap hobby. Good god.

It’s a subreddit for posting news articles about the violence women can experience with regards to this exact topic, it literally is 100% real life. Did you just not click the link?

How are you simultaneously acknowledging that the ratio or amount implied matters and then generally disregard the core of that statement?

Because I’m not doing that - that there is a ratio implied is what’s important here. The values being referenced do not change that the structures those values appear within are identical.

Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.

Your entire complaint with the comic hinges on them not having been clear enough about the ratio for your liking, not that it itself is somehow invalid. You’re mad that it can be interpreted poorly, but you’re not engaging with the ideas surrounding the comic that lead to the mixed reception, you’re fixated on the form of the comic itself.

A form you also use.

But you’ve just completely justified my initial comment - you admit you were transparently attempting to manipulate them (and in this discussion did the same to me) instead of engaging in good faith.

This line of discussion has never been about your ideas, it’s been entirely about criticism of your behavior - which you have yourself just explained was completely correct.

The discussion is worth having

But not so worth having that you actually want to have it.

I don’t believe I have to say anything more here, my criticism stands as completely validated.