Good point. Suppose the procedure ought to be something like:
state what (you think) the other person was asserting
show why that specific assertion fails
(optional) name the fallacy
Nominull skipped step 2, which in this case might be, “There’s a difference between something being obscure to you and it being obscure in a general sense. I don’t think “tl;dr” can be considered generally obscure given that the explanation of what it means is the top google hit.”
Good point. Suppose the procedure ought to be something like:
state what (you think) the other person was asserting
show why that specific assertion fails
(optional) name the fallacy
Nominull skipped step 2, which in this case might be, “There’s a difference between something being obscure to you and it being obscure in a general sense. I don’t think “tl;dr” can be considered generally obscure given that the explanation of what it means is the top google hit.”
Good point—I think it should have defused much of the disagreement. You get the definition right on the results page!
ETA: I have no idea whether I meant to say “defused” or “diffused” there. Hmm...