User Controls
THE OFISH 2017 COLLAGE THREAD!!!
-
2017-04-05 at 6:45 AM UTCHow fucking clear do I have to make it.
ONCE FUCKING AGAIN.
Raising three kids isn't a full-time job
Replied with
You can't raise one kid
..
Now read that again. YeH. Stip and go up and read that again.
Now, do it again.
If you still don't see the non sequitur there it means you are in fact a literal human non sequitur and ought to be placed in a camp beneath the ground where your job is the plant seeds and make sure they grow up correctly. :) -
2017-04-05 at 6:53 AM UTCTell me if I'm right:
It seems as if you have to draw an irrelevant conclusion for something to be a non-sequitur. Example: "raising kids isn't a full time job" met with "you can't raise one kid" falls more into the category of an irrelevant remark. A non-sequitur would be: "raising kids isn't a full time job" met with "uh-huh, because you can't raise one kid."
How's that? -
2017-04-05 at 7:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo Tell me if I'm right:
It seems as if you have to draw an irrelevant conclusion for something to be a non-sequitur. Example: "raising kids isn't a full time job" met with "you can't raise one kid" falls more into the category of an irrelevant remark. A non-sequitur would be: "raising kids isn't a full time job" met with "uh-huh, because you can't raise one kid."
How's that?
That's semantics. It's still a non sequitur.🇮🇹🇮🇹 -
2017-04-05 at 7:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo Tell me if I'm right:
It seems as if you have to draw an irrelevant conclusion for something to be a non-sequitur. Example: "raising kids isn't a full time job" met with "you can't raise one kid" falls more into the category of an irrelevant remark. A non-sequitur would be: "raising kids isn't a full time job" met with "uh-huh, because you can't raise one kid."
How's that?
Right!
I'd phrase it closer to "drawing a relevant conclusion from irrelevant premises", like you're introducing some irrelevant fact (you're fat, you can't raise a kid) and then suggest this says something about the central point (is raising children a full time job?). In a non sequitur the conclusion is relevant, it pertains to the central point, but it's false in that it can not be validly derived from the premises supplied. But the idea is right, it's that "because" that makes the difference between something like a valid rhetorical device (calling someone a hypocrite, questioning their authority on the subject) and a non sequitur (implying being a hypocrite or lacking authority implies that their argument is invalid).
Originally posted by mmQ How fucking clear do I have to make it.
ONCE FUCKING AGAIN.
Raising three kids isn't a full-time job
Replied with
You can't raise one kid
..
Now read that again. YeH. Stip and go up and read that again.
Now, do it again.
If you still don't see the non sequitur there it means you are in fact a literal human non sequitur and ought to be placed in a camp beneath the ground where your job is the plant seeds and make sure they grow up correctly. :)
I read it, several times now. Where is anyone saying "You can't raise one kid" indicates that raising kids is a full time job? -
2017-04-05 at 7:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Right!
I'd phrase it closer to "drawing a relevant conclusion from irrelevant premises", like you're introducing some irrelevant fact (you're fat, you can't raise a kid) and then suggest this says something about the central point (is raising children a full time job?). In a non sequitur the conclusion is relevant, it pertains to the central point, but it's false in that it can not be validly derived from the premises supplied. But the idea is right, it's that "because" that makes the difference between something like a valid rhetorical device (calling someone a hypocrite, questioning their authority on the subject) and a non sequitur (implying being a hypocrite or lacking authority implies that their argument is invalid).
I read it, several times now. Where is anyone saying "You can't raise one kid" indicates that raising kids is a full time job?
Are you patronizing me HARD as fuck right now Lanyard? This is the type of shit Panthrax does to me when I'm RIGHT. Im serious. Lol.
ONCE again you are switching the statements. I can't keep explaing it any more perfectly -
2017-04-05 at 7:10 AM UTCI have given PERFECT analogies. Nobody else has done that.
-
2017-04-05 at 7:12 AM UTCI'm not trying to be patronizing.
Hmm, so do you disagree that for a thing to be a non sequitur that one needs to propose that an irrelevant fact like "you can't raise one kid" implies some relevant conclusion like "raising kids is a full time job"?
Or do you think that this implicative step exists in the exchange earlier in this thread?
It seems like it has to be one or the other. -
2017-04-05 at 7:21 AM UTCFor a thing to be a non sequitur imo has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the initial statement.
You're way smarter than me I know that. Regardless, I've laid my analogies .
You worded your question all tricky with other questions you decepticon -
2017-04-05 at 7:22 AM UTCWhat a stupid pointless thread. Lanny, why do you encourage this?
-
2017-04-05 at 7:26 AM UTCSeriously though how many fucking times do I have to repeat that shit?
"BUILDING A NEW HOUSE ISMT THAT HARD."
"You don't own a house."
Related but not relevant. The subject very well could have still built a house, or studied and known how to. Right? -
2017-04-05 at 7:28 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 7:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice What a stupid pointless thread. Lanny, why do you encourage this?
It's a tradition.
"but comrade lanny, traditions are just things you do uncritically, for the feeble minded, surely we ubermensch have moved beyond"
No! Tradition, ritual, they're important. They serve as emotional connection to the past, participation grounds us in our time and culture. When Nietzsche said god is dead he wasn't talking about the literal loss of faith but the dissolution of social framework christianity represented for early modern Europe. The loss of tradition and community, common moral base, an anchor for meaning. Literally his idea of the ubermensch was not the individual that discarded that facet of a religious existence, of herd morality, but that found again that dimension without relying on received wisdom. Doing the annual totse collage is literally the most ubermensch thing you could do. FUCK the police.
Or did you mean the non sequitur thing? -
2017-04-05 at 7:37 AM UTCHe doesn't mean anything. Or wait, is Mal Mal gonna fly in with a cake flavored cape and educate us all on English semantics and non-sequitariasm?
He may! -
2017-04-05 at 7:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Related but not relevant. The subject very well could have still built a house, or studied and known how to. Right?
So yes, that's not relevant. But I maintain a non sequitur is more than just a related non-relevant statement. Latin for "does not follow", in context it means "the conclusion does not follow from the premises". Simple saying "you don't own a house" or "you can't raise a kid" is not an argument from premises to a conclusion, it's just a statement of fact. It becomes an argument when when you say something like "you can't raise a kid, therefore raising kids is a full time job", it becomes a non sequitur when the conclusion "raising kids is a full time job" is not implied by the premise "you can't raise a kid". -
2017-04-05 at 7:37 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 7:39 AM UTCQUOTEThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-04-05 at 7:45 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 7:48 AM UTC
-
2017-04-05 at 7:49 AM UTCAnd Again fuxk you to malice and dargo who didn't have fun. Sorry about that. :)
-
2017-04-05 at 7:51 AM UTC
