🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@robryk

Its not that talking about cars can get you to an answer and provide something. Its just that its a convoluted way to get there. Instead of debating the pros and cons of a license for guns, now we are lost first arguing if a license for a car is a good idea at all, derailing the whole conversation, and once we agree at all that cars should be licensed now we need to figure out why and if its similar and apply that over to guns... sure it works, but what is it bringing to the conversation since we cant assume licenses for cars are good as an axiom just because it is the way it is.

Usually the intent of invoking the comparison to car licenses is that there is an assumption someone will just agree they are good because we have them, but that isnt really the case.

In short, it now leads us into a totally seperate debate about car licenses that we must get through before we can even bring value over to the gun debate.

A libertarian for example may be very likely to feel the reverse is true from any such comparison. That because guns arent licensed, that licenses for cars should be abolished too.

@saxnot

@Parienve

Yea I picked up on that too, it is a bit ambiguous.

I can say from personal expiernce that 1) no one ive ever met has done math that uses in-line division. They always make it stacked (like you do when writing) so any change of ambiguity is removed 2) if it is written on a single line they would never (outside of maybe physics those guys are wacky) consider multiplication and division to have different precedence.

@mc

@robryk

No that wont necceseraly induce a fallacy. The issue is by invoking the need for a license for a car you would have to 1) justify that licenses for cars are indeed necessary and valid and 2) justify why this necessity also applies to guns.

Thats all well and good but you can just skip the middle man and directly explain the necessity for a license for a gun since the need for a license for a car in no way infers anything on its own without that component anyway.

@saxnot

@lefarfadet yea most people wouldnt unless they are a tec diver or nitrox diver. To give you an example 100% O2 is deadly beyond only 20 feet.

O2 toxicity results in seizure so while not directly deadly a seizure under water pretty much is a death sentence.

@lefarfadet Nitrox isnt for depth, its doe duration at shallow depths. When you go deep nitrox becomes deadly and you need air, even deeper and air becomes deadly and you actually need a gas with less oxygen than air with some of the nitrogen replaced with helium (hypoxic trimix).

The site is called the blue hole. It is in egypt on the south sinai peninsula just north of dahab.

@b6hydra I would be skeptical of anyone who didnt pick cheese as a priority in their life to be honest.

It has been determined that the kurdish people are more loved than bean curd, but less loved than cheese curd. To be fair its pretty hard to go up against any form of cheese and come out a winner.

@mc yes that one is particularly painful. I find it is often closely related to
Argumentum ad baculum in the sense that it implies if you dont agree with the authority (which is usually a majority held position of a democratic government) then you willb e unpopular with most people.

Not at all the same but they have a similar vibe sometimes.

@mc no idea what that is.

@Cogent_Texan Looks like my Hero3 and the case i have is rated to 60m. So I might just use that on my deeper dives and use the VIRB (which i much prefer) on my more moderate dives.

So I will soon be (hopefully) diving the great blue hole in egypt. This has a depth of around 60 meters to get to the arch. Sadly my current camera is rated only to 50 meters.

Who among you would care enough to see me dive the blue hole archway out into the sea enough to make it worth me upgrading my camera?

#SCUBA #OCEAN

@namark My assertion was about both contradiction and agreeing in a sense. On the one hand I pointed out that with some classes of problems what you described to be true (And thus in line with your expiernces). Yet with other classes of problems you are incorrect. This was my argument from the get go.

So my point was always about your stance as an absolutism is incorrect but can be true situationally.

If we are really going to be critical of the meta-argument where you seem to be talking now I'd say my stance has more common ground to connect to (not being an absolutism and all) than your own. That said I personally dont find such metadiscussion useful beyond reflecting on how we can communicate better in the future.

@Parienve It is sadly all too common. It is a particularly common tactic in extreme conservative and liberal circles where public opinion seems to be of high importance, as well as following witht he majority. Questioning the stance of either group, even as a member will get you a lot of ire.

@mc note that the ambiguity only arrises with "division with a slash" which is the wording used even in the exceptions to the general rule such as the journal mentioned.

@mc yup, well aware of the wikipedia article. Been over it countless times with people on this debate.

@namark ::rolls eyes:: its not about bragging. I shared my experience for the same reason as you, because it contradicts your claims much as you feel your experience contradicts mine. My goal in mentioning this is no more empirical than your own. Simply put, I've seen for myself that your claims have been wrong in countless projects, that experience has value, experience is hard to objectify, so take it as you will.

Either way I see you've reached that point as you always do in conversations where your own obnoxiousness outweights any ability to have an adult conversation. I'll be muting this conversation now, have a good day.

@Parienve I find the more subtle forms of ad baculum to be the most insidious. Yea the whole "Your an idiot ill kill you" if you dont agree with someone makes it impossible to take them seriously. But thankfully its so absurd I dont even consider it here.

The worse form of it goes something like this:

"I support providing therapy for people with inappropriate sexual urges so they dont act on it."

them: "Oh so you are a pedophile sympathizer, I'm sure you are real popular with the ladies"

Basically implying that the whole of society will hate you for your viewpoint, as if how much you are liked somehow effects what the truth is.