Comment on For when arguments go off the bottom of The Debate Pyramid

jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Digit@lemmy.wtf ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  You’ve introduced metagaming.

  ???

  I’m not sure you’re aware what’s happening here.

  You’ve introduced

  This is an attempt at a re-creation of someone else’s extended version. As noted in the text in the image, and in my other post here (which in hindsight (especially after seeing this comment) I think I should have included in the original post, and put my question in the title.)

  It’s an interesting thing you’ve created, but it’s not the same kind of thing.

  Like I say, I’m not sure you’re aware of what’s happening here.

  If you are, then please, by all means, if you have access to the original extended version this is a re-creation of, please share it, so we can compare where I went wrong. (I re-created it as faithfully as I could from memory, after exhausting myself on several attempts to find it again.)

  If not, and you thought this extended version is entirely created by me, then let this reply be a correction, refuting that.

  Also… re:

  metagaming

  it’s not the same kind of thing.

  I’d like to know more about your thoughts and feelings on this, as it’s not clear to me how you think this is so, and is not apparent to me how the original 2-layer-extended version I’ve copied from memory is doing this.

  To my thinking this extended version seems exactly in the same spirit of Paul Graham’s original, adding necessary extension to cover further levels by which some people seek to win arguments by worse means than mere name-calling.

  But like I say, I’d love to hear more about your perceptions of this is being in error, and it being “metagaming”, and “not the same kind of thing”. If you can, for those of us to whom that nuanced insight’s not apparent, may you please elaborate on that?

  source

  • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Hey, remember “Too Much Coffee Man”?

    source

    • Digit@lemmy.wtf ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Nope.

      But I’d still love to hear what credence is behind your metagaming introduction assertion.

      source