DarlBundren wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:55 amI don't think I quoted out of context. You wrote a compound sentence using “and” (P Ʌ Q) and I said that the latter part was not the main point.NonZeroSum wrote:With all the respect in the world you really have to get out of the habit of quoting out of context, remember seeing the forest for the trees. I will try to be clearer in my statements, but you just can’t quote the end of a sentence after ‘and’ and expect to have captured the intended meaning.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_contextQuoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1] Contextomies may be both intentional, as well as accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it to be non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
As a straw man argument, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. It is common in politics.
[...]
Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context per se (as all quotes are), but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.
____________
No, no and no! Literally the next sub-clause!DarlBundren wrote:OK, then. We basically agree about cats being a problem, but you think it would be better not to talk about it, since it's alienating (or since people are too stupid to be told all the truth – not that I disagree). . .NonZeroSum wrote:I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point, I think it’s important to discuss. . .
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClauseIn grammar, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition.[1] A typical clause consists of a subject and a predicate,[2] the latter typically a verb phrase, a verb with any objects and other modifiers. However, the subject is sometimes not said or explicit, often the case in null-subject languages if the subject is retrievable from context, but it sometimes also occurs in other languages such as English (as in imperative sentences and non-finite clauses).
A simple sentence usually consists of a single finite clause with a finite verb that is independent. More complex sentences may contain multiple clauses. Main clauses (matrix clauses, independent clauses) are those that can stand alone as a sentence. Subordinate clauses (embedded clauses, dependent clauses) are those that would be awkward or incomplete if they were alone.
/I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point,/ [<-- main clause] I think it’s important to /discuss/ [<-- verb] . . / [<-- sub clause]
Exactly the same as:
/My. . .big problem with this video is. . . listing all the bad things about carnivorous animals / [<-- main clause] and why it’s not worth our individual time /looking/ [<-- verb] after them . . . / [<-- sub clause]
One doesn't make sense without the other:
My. . .big problem with this video is. . . listing all the bad things about carnivorous animal's / [with an over emphasis on] / why it’s not worth our individual time looking after them.
In context:
Reworded for emphasis on my specific problem with this video and philosophy:I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point, I think it’s important to discuss, but the ‘why’ is the grounding of the discussion in solutions, it’s how to minimize those effects as industrious owners or if it would be better left up to charities and politicians is the conversation.
Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position which you could only really ever find grounds to agree with if you are already vegan, excludes potential converts from the conversation by making all vegans look extreme and laughable. . . [Examples given of that alienating philosophy in action with meat eaters]
___________I acknowledge that them being carnivores is the main point, I think it’s important to discuss, but. . . Framing the argument all the way along to guide people towards the latter hard-line position. . . [that] it would be better left up to charities and politicians. . . excludes potential converts from the conversation by making all vegans look extreme and laughable.
DarlBundren wrote:I, for one, think that it's important to talk about how to feed our pets, though, because each and every vegan/vegetarian person that I know feeds their dogs meat, and there's not much of a point in being vegan if you get a dog from a breeder and feed them meat. I think it's important to discuss this.
___________NonZeroSum wrote:. . .The tips that I gained from their first two videos on Cats were really useful in conversation; Domestic Cats can’t naturally eat 100% raw meat like their ancestors, so it’s fine to give them less to no meat under our appropriate care which is better again than being feral, adopt don’t buy, keep indoors.
It’s because I agree with her that carnivorous animals that don’t always crave human affection shouldn't be forced to conform to our way of life that it’s upsetting they bundled this argument.
Good I agree.DarlBundren wrote:As for the whether vegans should have cats or let them be adopted by meat-eaters, that's another question, though. Apparently, she thinks that vegans shouldn't. I don't know. I am inclined to say that vegans would make better, more responsible owners.
[. . .]
Both, we need responsible owners and governments that acknowledge the situation. I don't know about your country, but, as I have said, we already neuter feral cats where I live.
_____________
Lol no, they don't own successful activism so I'm not giving up the word effective to them.DarlBundren wrote:I am all for effective altruism, man. We disagree about what is the most effective solution. That, or we don't use the word effective in the same way. EA is mostly based on consequentialism.NonZeroSum wrote: I know I have a different philosophy to UV and to you again, not expecting that to change dramatically but it’s good we can agree on ways to move towards more effective activism.