If you want to define it that way, of course Snape is evil!
Nobody was arguing by definition. The implied argument by link is invalid. Whatever the word used—bad, evil, dickish, deprecated, subjectively-obectively against my preferences—there is just a thing being described as undesirable and no attempt to prove anything by definitions.
But don’t go around trying to sneak in any more connotations
This doesn’t apply to anything I have done either. Did you include it just because it happens to be the follow up link on the argument by definition? (So as to give no pretense of subtlety, I endorse the implication behind my pointed emphasis on ‘I’.)
Such as, for instance, that he kicks puppies, rapes Muggleborns, massacres Jews, plans to nuke Africa, or is secretly a frequentist.
This conversation is perhaps not entirely useful so I’m just going to claim the Godwin’s violation and leave it alone.
A binary classification of people into “good” and “evil” is possible. I define certain actions as “evil”, and classify people who perform those actions as “evil”. Snape performs those actions, therefore, he is evil.
I seem to have missed this part, though:
That doesn’t mean he must be on the enemy team, he could well be a bad guy that plays for the same side Harry does and otherwise does some positive things.
Which is more or less exactly what I’d anticipate, meaning that this whole debate is over semantics.
I’m just going to claim the Godwin’s violation and leave it alone.
Looking at TVTropes, I find that Godwin’s Law is defined more broadly than I’d thought it was. OK, you win.
Huh? So what on earth was this whole discussion about?
Something about badness, child abuse and Snape still being a @#$% no matter who he is secretly working for.
Why would you accuse me of a one-color view for accusing the OP of a two-color view?
Because The Fallacy of the Gray is an awesome point, applies to your accusation of Elmer and said accusation should be rejected as an inappropriate reply to what Elmer said. While having a surface appearance of sophistication your criticisms there and in the subsequent replies are based on incorrect application of the principles of each of “two color views, no meaning in the real world, arguing by definition, and sneaking in connotations”.
“You asked” does count for something but I wonder if it would be better not to answer that question literally and directly. Pardon the violation of tact—don’t take that as an escalation but rather an explanation of existing position without expectation that you would agree.
Note: The comment you replied to was edited heavily since after it was posted.
Something about badness, child abuse and Snape still being a @#$% no matter who he is secretly working for.
Ok, what do all these words like “evil” and “badness” and “dickishness” mean? What do they cause you to anticipate? Apart from Snape bullying children, which no one’s denying he does.
Your justification for calling him “evil” is “he bullies children, which is evil, therefore he’s evil”. Your justification for that is “there are certain things that are evil; there just are”. And of course if bullying is evil and doing evil things makes a person evil, then Snape is evil, he’s evil because you’re defining evil that way.
And then you’re sneaking in all the connotations associated with the word “evil”, whether you want to admit to it or not. (If you aren’t, then the only thing you should anticipate from labelling Snape as “evil” is that he bullies children. If that’s the case, it’s a semantic dispute. If it isn’t, you’re sneaking in a connotation somewhere.)
As for Elmer, let me paraphrase his point:
Snape, in the earlier books, performed actions that made me classify him as “evil”. Then, later, her performed actions better suited to the label “good”. No fair! He can’t really be “good”!
Note the conflation of “good” actions with the “good” label, as if doing “good” things was a right exclusive to “good” people.
How is that not a two-color view? Or did I misunderstand something?
Nobody was arguing by definition. The implied argument by link is invalid. Whatever the word used—bad, evil, dickish, deprecated, subjectively-obectively against my preferences—there is just a thing being described as undesirable and no attempt to prove anything by definitions.
This doesn’t apply to anything I have done either. Did you include it just because it happens to be the follow up link on the argument by definition? (So as to give no pretense of subtlety, I endorse the implication behind my pointed emphasis on ‘I’.)
This conversation is perhaps not entirely useful so I’m just going to claim the Godwin’s violation and leave it alone.
Reread this.
Your claim: (paraphrased)
I seem to have missed this part, though:
Which is more or less exactly what I’d anticipate, meaning that this whole debate is over semantics.
Looking at TVTropes, I find that Godwin’s Law is defined more broadly than I’d thought it was. OK, you win.
Something about badness, child abuse and Snape still being a @#$% no matter who he is secretly working for.
Because The Fallacy of the Gray is an awesome point, applies to your accusation of Elmer and said accusation should be rejected as an inappropriate reply to what Elmer said. While having a surface appearance of sophistication your criticisms there and in the subsequent replies are based on incorrect application of the principles of each of “two color views, no meaning in the real world, arguing by definition, and sneaking in connotations”.
“You asked” does count for something but I wonder if it would be better not to answer that question literally and directly. Pardon the violation of tact—don’t take that as an escalation but rather an explanation of existing position without expectation that you would agree.
Note: The comment you replied to was edited heavily since after it was posted.
Ok, what do all these words like “evil” and “badness” and “dickishness” mean? What do they cause you to anticipate? Apart from Snape bullying children, which no one’s denying he does.
Your justification for calling him “evil” is “he bullies children, which is evil, therefore he’s evil”. Your justification for that is “there are certain things that are evil; there just are”. And of course if bullying is evil and doing evil things makes a person evil, then Snape is evil, he’s evil because you’re defining evil that way.
And then you’re sneaking in all the connotations associated with the word “evil”, whether you want to admit to it or not. (If you aren’t, then the only thing you should anticipate from labelling Snape as “evil” is that he bullies children. If that’s the case, it’s a semantic dispute. If it isn’t, you’re sneaking in a connotation somewhere.)
As for Elmer, let me paraphrase his point:
Note the conflation of “good” actions with the “good” label, as if doing “good” things was a right exclusive to “good” people.
How is that not a two-color view? Or did I misunderstand something?