• 7 Posts
  • 541 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle









  • My wife hung out with her for the day as part of her job. Her mother was a bitch—my wife accidentally tripped Taylor over and the mother lost it—but Taylor was super nice. They were friends by the end of the day and swapped numbers, but neither ever reached out haha.

    This was before she got super famous and was just some young country singer. I dunno if she’s still the same but I don’t see why not.







  • saltesc@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    21 days ago

    I don’t want to deflate your assumption, but “Science is pure objectivity and truth”.

    The assumption you introduced just added another layer on by bringing Marxism into it. And here’s the thing with that fallacy; you may be very right! But, it’s got nothing to do with the original statement anymore. It’s just going down tangents of a tangent that should be explored under their own initiative, not the blanket of “science”.


  • saltesc@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    21 days ago

    It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.

    The entire post itself—and your reply—is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to any -ism. All isms are human-made. If they are 100% true, they are not isms.

    Edit: Sorry, I’m drunk af, so probably you are right…maybe… At least in my mind, I’m just reading Statement B as literally as Statement A and therefore can’t see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using “science”. It’s bias. That’s very unscientific.


  • saltesc@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

    Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.

    This could be done with any combination of…

    “Under capitalism, <random thing> is…”
    “Under <random ism>, science is…”

    They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.

    I.e. It’s an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.

    Unless, of course, “that’s the joke” and I’m just that dumb.

    Edit: I’m not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that’s what science be and anything else isn’t science, it’s just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.