I’m not ignoring that part of the statement I’m taking it in the context of the whole reply.
In what way does it make sense to assume that someone would immediately contradict themself?
There is no assumption on my part, it’s in the reply.
If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.
I agree they probably would have been better understood by merging the two together.
I appreciate your emotional disconnectedness from this debate, by the way. While my initial comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, this has been a good exercise in reading between the lines of written words. However silly and benign this has become lol
Yeah, between the lines took me a really long time to get reasonable at, these interactions help me get better at working through my understanding(or lack thereof)
Well, we’re both assuming the intent behind the words used. I’m assuming they did not contradict themselves, because their meaning was “my solution is different”. You are assuming that they contradicted themselves because their meaning was “my solution is better”
You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?
Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.
You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.
Their logical argument has the predicate(reasoning): Some people without the extra assistance will not fully benefit.
And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.
At no point did they say that housing without assistance could in anyway sufficiently solve homelessness, not in any way that would follow in a logical argument.
In any case, everyone is making assumptions here. It’s literally the basis of communication and it’s not a negative thing. You must assume certain things about what a person says in order to communicate. You must assume that they are saying things they believe unless there is a reason not to. You must assume that they are using words in the way that you understand, or otherwise you must come to a conclusion about the meaning of those words in order for communication to be effective. Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.
You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?
I didn’t realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:
“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”
Should be
“I can [seriously say with a straight face that the solution to homelessness is something other than providing free housing]. Providing free housing solves some of the problem, but a more comprehensive solution is to provide free housing and assistance.”
The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)
Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.
I’m not, and i quote:
If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.
You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.
Not really.
Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.
I’m counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1…*] <things> solution.
Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.
I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.
And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.
I think what i’ve done here is read “assistance” as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.
My bad.
Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.
I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both “good” and “bad”.
I’m not ignoring that part of the statement I’m taking it in the context of the whole reply.
There is no assumption on my part, it’s in the reply.
If they were two completely separate statements made at different times i might also consider them to be at odds (it would probably depend on the context) but as they are contiguous I’m reading it as a statement followed by a clarification.
I agree they probably would have been better understood by merging the two together.
Yeah, between the lines took me a really long time to get reasonable at, these interactions help me get better at working through my understanding(or lack thereof)
Well, we’re both assuming the intent behind the words used. I’m assuming they did not contradict themselves, because their meaning was “my solution is different”. You are assuming that they contradicted themselves because their meaning was “my solution is better”
As i said in my previously replies , there was no assumption of contradiction.
The two statements in that reply add up to a different position that if you just take the first statement on it’s own.
Not a contradiction, an addition/clarification.
But this is the most salient point:
Many people were pushing for a housing only being a suboptimal solution
No-one at any point was pushing for a housing-only solution (after that first reply of course, which for some reason has a lot of votes)
Any argument based on someone else having done so, will be flawed.
You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?
Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.
You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.
Their logical argument has the predicate(reasoning): Some people without the extra assistance will not fully benefit.
And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.
At no point did they say that housing without assistance could in anyway sufficiently solve homelessness, not in any way that would follow in a logical argument.
In any case, everyone is making assumptions here. It’s literally the basis of communication and it’s not a negative thing. You must assume certain things about what a person says in order to communicate. You must assume that they are saying things they believe unless there is a reason not to. You must assume that they are using words in the way that you understand, or otherwise you must come to a conclusion about the meaning of those words in order for communication to be effective. Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.
I didn’t realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:
Should be
The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)
I’m not, and i quote:
Not really.
Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.
I’m counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1…*] <things> solution.
Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.
I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.
I think what i’ve done here is read “assistance” as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.
My bad.
I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both “good” and “bad”.