{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by SpookyNoises:
11/8/2014 9:19:30 PM
2
This is a classic spurious argument based on a false interdependence of hierarchy. The form:
You object to A.
B is more objectionable than A.
Ergo, you cannot object to A.
Seen without the varnish of the content (ala A=pokemon B=inevitable heat death of the universe) the non sequitur is obvious. People using this argument will keep trying to drag focus back to the comparison (B> A, therefore ! A). The beauty is that there is no possible value for A or B that negates the structural flaw in the argument (that objecting to A is in no way contingent on a comparison to an unposited B and positing B does not impose such predicate ex post facto).
English
-
Straw man is what I would have said. It's honestly all I see in about ever post on the Internet and argument in life.
-
Straw man is actually almost impossible to structurally prove as it is contingent on intent that produces arguments structurally indistinguishable from arguments absent that intent (ie the intent to misrepresent vs intent to critique via recontextualizing). Straw man claims are so common because they can be applied to anything (including this comment) without fear of empirical rebuttal (or validation).
-
Exactly what i was going to say!
