The above comment would be insightful if it was a counterexample. This means it is not a counterexample. That means that it is not insightful. That means it is a counterexample. It’s like the least interesting number paradox of nonsense strings of letters.
Regardless, I might recognize the technical accuracy of your point, but your point is only superficially useful. I liked the original comment and thought that it was both funny and insightful. Yes, some of that insight is mine as well, rocks can’t sing or dance or use logic, but that doesn’t mean that the initial comment isn’t also interesting.
The above comment would be insightful if it was a counterexample. This means it is not a counterexample. That means that it is not insightful.
This does not follow. You’re treating the first premise like a double implication, but it’s certainly not true that the comment would be insightful if and only if it was a counterexample.
Clearly the comment “afsd;ljkurjzvn,x” was just a typo for “afsd:ljkurjzvn.x”, which I read as agreement with my point, making clever reference to complexity theory and Aaronson’s refutation of the waterfall argument.
Any comment can seem insightful if you’re allowed to supply details until it makes sense.
I don’t think the details you have to supply here (you have to know what the meme is, I suppose?) are particularly difficult or unreasonable.
afsd;ljkurjzvn,x
The above comment would be insightful if it was a counterexample. This means it is not a counterexample. That means that it is not insightful. That means it is a counterexample. It’s like the least interesting number paradox of nonsense strings of letters.
Regardless, I might recognize the technical accuracy of your point, but your point is only superficially useful. I liked the original comment and thought that it was both funny and insightful. Yes, some of that insight is mine as well, rocks can’t sing or dance or use logic, but that doesn’t mean that the initial comment isn’t also interesting.
This does not follow. You’re treating the first premise like a double implication, but it’s certainly not true that the comment would be insightful if and only if it was a counterexample.
Clearly the comment “afsd;ljkurjzvn,x” was just a typo for “afsd:ljkurjzvn.x”, which I read as agreement with my point, making clever reference to complexity theory and Aaronson’s refutation of the waterfall argument.
So it’s isn’t rot13?