Continue this thread with thomblake, who has identified the issue more precisely than I can.
I have been working on a reply to thomblake for a while, but I do not really have much of a desire to continue this thread: it is causing me to get upset at LW, a state I do not wish to be in.
“Those that can help us are humans” is logically equivalent to “Only a human can help us.” Both are effectively zero-information sentences. No converse fallacy here.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans
/
I guess the lesson here is that signal mismatches happen to everyone!
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
Of course Vassar isn’t looking for mere humans
I don’t understand your confusion. I’m only making one criticism. The statement is ridiculous because it has no informational content. I stated that in the sentence prior to the quoted one. I never assumed “only a human can help us” meant “every human can help us”.
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
It was the second meaning I found, after I judged the first one to be improbable. I’m pointing out the irony of you being disappointed at others finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in Vassar’s work, while also yourself finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in the previous comment.
I have been working on a reply to thomblake for a while, but I do not really have much of a desire to continue this thread: it is causing me to get upset at LW, a state I do not wish to be in.
The converse fallacy occurred when you took “only a human can help us” to mean “every human can help us”—your “ridiculous” criticism, which is distinct from your “zero-information” criticism—here:
/
Are you implying that you didn’t comprehend the rhetorical meaning of Vassar’s statement? I find that implausible.
I don’t understand your confusion. I’m only making one criticism. The statement is ridiculous because it has no informational content. I stated that in the sentence prior to the quoted one. I never assumed “only a human can help us” meant “every human can help us”.
It was the second meaning I found, after I judged the first one to be improbable. I’m pointing out the irony of you being disappointed at others finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in Vassar’s work, while also yourself finding an offensive-but-probably-unintentional subtext in the previous comment.