@Damian
"Because a joke can't also be a way of of undermining someones argument. Clearly. /s"
I never said a joke CANT be a way (and a bad one at that) of undermining an argument, but i said that my comment was a joke, and in the context of me NOT arguing with him, all this combines to prove that i was NOT guilty of the "fallacy fallacy" of which you accused me of.
"Jesus man. Intent only matters so much. Evidently you're unaware of the way your posts are going to interpreted."
this is entirely inaccurate.
1. it is 100% EVIDENT that i was aware that what i said would be interpreted: as proved my by earlier responses to your addressing this.
2. intent matters MUCH more than someone's subjective view of the situation.
this is actually a quite common problem in the modern PC culture (of which i am not attributing you to, but rather i'm drawing a comparison)
people get offended by statements, that are in no way meant to be offensive.
recently there have been speech codes on college campuses. why? because people get offended by certain words. one such word that has been banned is "slave" because it remind black people of what happened to their ancestors over a hundred years ago.
so if someone were to say that they "hate being a slave to homework" this would be INTERPRETED as offensive, all the while it having no real intent.
drawing this back to what you said, you INTERPRETED my JOKES as an attempt to undermine @Ogion's post.
my intent was never to do so, but for some reason or another YOU looked at a JOKE and thought that this was an attempt at a logical argument, that failed due to the "fallacy fallacy."
since then i have corrected you, but you have made no attempt to rescind your original claim of me using a fallacy in an argument with @Ogion.
"Plus ones aren't evidence of it being a joke either?"
is that a statement or a question? and while your response are heading downhill, i perhaps should clarify: +1s are often given out on substantive remarks, but they're MOST frequently given out on jokes. if you were unaware of this then i apologize on your behalf, but in my cases there is evidence that both what i what i was saying was a joke (as you yourself called it a "sarcastic quip") and that it was well received: hence the +1s
"People plus one malicious shit on the forum all the time."
this is fair, but you yourself said that my post was a sarcastic quip, and in my retort of your overall critique of me i said that the +1s were further evidence of my joke being WIDELY regarded as just that: a joke.
let me give you example:
if i say "A plateau is the highest form of flattery." and that gets +1ed, then we can make a fair assumption that the people +1ing my post are NOT interpreting what i said as an insightful revelation on topography, but rather as it were: a joke.
the fact that i had multiple +1s means MANY people were interpreting it in its most blatant fashion: a joke.
now this is not to say that NOBODY would misconstrue what i said to be an attempt at arguing against @Ogion, but it does speak depths to YOU, as you did NOT see what i said as a joke, but rather demeaned the comment by claiming it was subject to the "fallacy fallacy"
here's a quick experiment: did YOU +1 my post? if you did not, then i would present this as further proof that people regarding my comment saw it in terms of a joke, whereas people who did NOT see my comment in terms of a joke were more likely to respond to it: as one does Naturally in an argument.
my experiment taken in full context of only 58 people being currently logged on, and most likely no more than a dozen on the forum currently.
the problem is that your interpretation of what i said bears no adequate resemblance as to my intent, or to any objective measurement of my statement. there is no logical link between what i said and any sort of valid critique of @Ogion's argument.
but you have decided to pretend this link exists, and i'd very much appreciate it if you'd apologize for attempting to demean my post as being a lazy debate tactic, and we could put this entire thing to rest