Symfony Profiler

{
    "@context": [
        "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams",
        "https:\/\/w3id.org\/security\/v1",
        {
            "lemmy": "https:\/\/join-lemmy.org\/ns#",
            "litepub": "http:\/\/litepub.social\/ns#",
            "pt": "https:\/\/joinpeertube.org\/ns#",
            "sc": "http:\/\/schema.org\/",
            "ChatMessage": "litepub:ChatMessage",
            "commentsEnabled": "pt:commentsEnabled",
            "sensitive": "as:sensitive",
            "matrixUserId": "lemmy:matrixUserId",
            "postingRestrictedToMods": "lemmy:postingRestrictedToMods",
            "removeData": "lemmy:removeData",
            "stickied": "lemmy:stickied",
            "moderators": {
                "@type": "@id",
                "@id": "lemmy:moderators"
            },
            "expires": "as:endTime",
            "distinguished": "lemmy:distinguished",
            "language": "sc:inLanguage",
            "identifier": "sc:identifier"
        }
    ],
    "actor": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/c\/chat",
    "to": [
        "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams#Public"
    ],
    "object": {
        "id": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/activities\/update\/add7c517-2dfc-47f6-bd66-62e4c09ecc3c",
        "actor": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/u\/LukeZaz",
        "to": [
            "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams#Public"
        ],
        "object": {
            "type": "Note",
            "id": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/comment\/4662205",
            "attributedTo": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/u\/LukeZaz",
            "to": [
                "https:\/\/www.w3.org\/ns\/activitystreams#Public"
            ],
            "cc": [
                "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/c\/chat",
                "https:\/\/mander.xyz\/u\/lvxferre"
            ],
            "content": "<p>I think it\u2019s a very common belief amongst forums like these to look to logical fallacies to root out dishonest behavior, in the hopes that it\u2019ll provide a nice and easy way to deduce when someone\u2019s a grifter. That you can tell if someone\u2019s a liar \u2013 or for that matter, real \u2013 by applying them sufficiently.<\/p>\n<p>The problem is, humans are fallible. They fuck up. Innocently. Constantly. It\u2019s <em>normal<\/em> to make fallacious arguments, and doing so should not cause you to be automatically marked off as a robot, troll or spy. Some examples for your given fallacies:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Oversimplification can also occur if someone is tired and does not want to go into rigorous academic detail for their argument. Alternatively, they may simply <em>not know<\/em> the detail to begin with.<\/li>\n<li>Genetic fallacy can occur due to simple human anger; if someone feels that their interlocutor has made bad-faith arguments frequently before, they\u2019re inclined to ignore what that individual has to say outright, likely without even reading it. (This one has happened in this thread, several times)<\/li>\n<li>Strawmen happen all the time and extremely easily, because people will inevitably end up making assumptions about the position of others based on previous discussions they\u2019ve had. If you spend enough time arguing a point and getting response <code>X<\/code>, you\u2019re going to start assuming that the person you\u2019re talking to about that is implying <code>X<\/code>, even if they haven\u2019t said it and never intended to.<\/li>\n<li>Ignoring refutation happens plenty simply when people get defensive. Admitting you\u2019re wrong is hard, and it\u2019s much preferable to instead change the topic or find some other way of pretending you were never disproven of anything. This is inherently a logical leap, and that\u2019s why it leads to often dumber positions.<\/li>\n<li>With regard to <em>ad nauseam:<\/em> If someone finds a particular point very convincing and easy to understand for themselves, they may find it confusing as to why you don\u2019t agree on it. This can lead to them repeatedly trying to explain it more thoroughly and in different words under the assumption that the way they said it was why you didn\u2019t get it. I\u2019ve done this a <em>lot<\/em> in my past.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr \/>\n<p>With those examples out of the way, I just want to emphasize the fact that <strong>you should never pretend the presence of logical fallacies is a guarantee of bad faith, much less use it to dehumanize others.<\/strong> If we let ourselves do that, we\u2019ll all tear each other apart under the mistaken assumption that we\u2019re rooting out an evil that has no promise of even being present at all. To err is human.<\/p>\n",
            "inReplyTo": "https:\/\/mander.xyz\/comment\/18791613",
            "mediaType": "text\/html",
            "source": {
                "content": "I think it's a very common belief amongst forums like these to look to logical fallacies to root out dishonest behavior, in the hopes that it'll provide a nice and easy way to deduce when someone's a grifter. That you can tell if someone's a liar \u2013 or for that matter, real \u2013 by applying them sufficiently.\n\nThe problem is, humans are fallible. They fuck up. Innocently. Constantly. It's _normal_ to make fallacious arguments, and doing so should not cause you to be automatically marked off as a robot, troll or spy. Some examples for your given fallacies:\n* Oversimplification can also occur if someone is tired and does not want to go into rigorous academic detail for their argument. Alternatively, they may simply _not know_ the detail to begin with.\n* Genetic fallacy can occur due to simple human anger; if someone feels that their interlocutor has made bad-faith arguments frequently before, they're inclined to ignore what that individual has to say outright, likely without even reading it. (This one has happened in this thread, several times)\n* Strawmen happen all the time and extremely easily, because people will inevitably end up making assumptions about the position of others based on previous discussions they've had. If you spend enough time arguing a point and getting response `X`, you're going to start assuming that the person you're talking to about that is implying `X`, even if they haven't said it and never intended to.\n* Ignoring refutation happens plenty simply when people get defensive. Admitting you're wrong is hard, and it's much preferable to instead change the topic or find some other way of pretending you were never disproven of anything. This is inherently a logical leap, and that's why it leads to often dumber positions.\n* With regard to _ad nauseam:_ If someone finds a particular point very convincing and easy to understand for themselves, they may find it confusing as to why you don't agree on it. This can lead to them repeatedly trying to explain it more thoroughly and in different words under the assumption that the way they said it was why you didn't get it. I've done this a _lot_ in my past.\n\n-----\n\nWith those examples out of the way, I just want to emphasize the fact that **you should never pretend the presence of logical fallacies is a guarantee of bad faith, much less use it to dehumanize others.** If we let ourselves do that, we'll all tear each other apart under the mistaken assumption that we're rooting out an evil that has no promise of even being present at all. To err is human.",
                "mediaType": "text\/markdown"
            },
            "published": "2025-05-02T06:20:40.069172+00:00",
            "updated": "2025-05-02T06:22:39.279674+00:00",
            "tag": [
                {
                    "href": "https:\/\/mander.xyz\/u\/lvxferre",
                    "name": "@lvxferre@mander.xyz",
                    "type": "Mention"
                }
            ],
            "distinguished": false,
            "language": {
                "identifier": "en",
                "name": "English"
            },
            "audience": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/c\/chat"
        },
        "cc": [
            "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/c\/chat",
            "https:\/\/mander.xyz\/u\/lvxferre"
        ],
        "tag": [
            {
                "href": "https:\/\/mander.xyz\/u\/lvxferre",
                "name": "@lvxferre@mander.xyz",
                "type": "Mention"
            }
        ],
        "type": "Update",
        "audience": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/c\/chat"
    },
    "cc": [
        "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/c\/chat\/followers"
    ],
    "type": "Announce",
    "id": "https:\/\/beehaw.org\/activities\/announce\/c471154d-63ec-47f2-87fe-d426b0fa7be5"
}

{"@context":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams","https://w3id.org/security/v1",{"lemmy":"https://join-lemmy.org/ns#","litepub":"http://litepub.social/ns#","pt":"https://joinpeertube.org/ns#","sc":"http://schema.org/","ChatMessage":"litepub:ChatMessage","commentsEnabled":"pt:commentsEnabled","sensitive":"as:sensitive","matrixUserId":"lemmy:matrixUserId","postingRestrictedToMods":"lemmy:postingRestrictedToMods","removeData":"lemmy:removeData","stickied":"lemmy:stickied","moderators":{"@type":"@id","@id":"lemmy:moderators"},"expires":"as:endTime","distinguished":"lemmy:distinguished","language":"sc:inLanguage","identifier":"sc:identifier"}],"actor":"https://beehaw.org/c/chat","to":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"],"object":{"id":"https://beehaw.org/activities/update/add7c517-2dfc-47f6-bd66-62e4c09ecc3c","actor":"https://beehaw.org/u/LukeZaz","to":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"],"object":{"type":"Note","id":"https://beehaw.org/comment/4662205","attributedTo":"https://beehaw.org/u/LukeZaz","to":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public"],"cc":["https://beehaw.org/c/chat","https://mander.xyz/u/lvxferre"],"content":"<p>I think it’s a very common belief amongst forums like these to look to logical fallacies to root out dishonest behavior, in the hopes that it’ll provide a nice and easy way to deduce when someone’s a grifter. That you can tell if someone’s a liar – or for that matter, real – by applying them sufficiently.</p>\n<p>The problem is, humans are fallible. They fuck up. Innocently. Constantly. It’s <em>normal</em> to make fallacious arguments, and doing so should not cause you to be automatically marked off as a robot, troll or spy. Some examples for your given fallacies:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Oversimplification can also occur if someone is tired and does not want to go into rigorous academic detail for their argument. Alternatively, they may simply <em>not know</em> the detail to begin with.</li>\n<li>Genetic fallacy can occur due to simple human anger; if someone feels that their interlocutor has made bad-faith arguments frequently before, they’re inclined to ignore what that individual has to say outright, likely without even reading it. (This one has happened in this thread, several times)</li>\n<li>Strawmen happen all the time and extremely easily, because people will inevitably end up making assumptions about the position of others based on previous discussions they’ve had. If you spend enough time arguing a point and getting response <code>X</code>, you’re going to start assuming that the person you’re talking to about that is implying <code>X</code>, even if they haven’t said it and never intended to.</li>\n<li>Ignoring refutation happens plenty simply when people get defensive. Admitting you’re wrong is hard, and it’s much preferable to instead change the topic or find some other way of pretending you were never disproven of anything. This is inherently a logical leap, and that’s why it leads to often dumber positions.</li>\n<li>With regard to <em>ad nauseam:</em> If someone finds a particular point very convincing and easy to understand for themselves, they may find it confusing as to why you don’t agree on it. This can lead to them repeatedly trying to explain it more thoroughly and in different words under the assumption that the way they said it was why you didn’t get it. I’ve done this a <em>lot</em> in my past.</li>\n</ul>\n<hr />\n<p>With those examples out of the way, I just want to emphasize the fact that <strong>you should never pretend the presence of logical fallacies is a guarantee of bad faith, much less use it to dehumanize others.</strong> If we let ourselves do that, we’ll all tear each other apart under the mistaken assumption that we’re rooting out an evil that has no promise of even being present at all. To err is human.</p>\n","inReplyTo":"https://mander.xyz/comment/18791613","mediaType":"text/html","source":{"content":"I think it's a very common belief amongst forums like these to look to logical fallacies to root out dishonest behavior, in the hopes that it'll provide a nice and easy way to deduce when someone's a grifter. That you can tell if someone's a liar – or for that matter, real – by applying them sufficiently.\n\nThe problem is, humans are fallible. They fuck up. Innocently. Constantly. It's _normal_ to make fallacious arguments, and doing so should not cause you to be automatically marked off as a robot, troll or spy. Some examples for your given fallacies:\n* Oversimplification can also occur if someone is tired and does not want to go into rigorous academic detail for their argument. Alternatively, they may simply _not know_ the detail to begin with.\n* Genetic fallacy can occur due to simple human anger; if someone feels that their interlocutor has made bad-faith arguments frequently before, they're inclined to ignore what that individual has to say outright, likely without even reading it. (This one has happened in this thread, several times)\n* Strawmen happen all the time and extremely easily, because people will inevitably end up making assumptions about the position of others based on previous discussions they've had. If you spend enough time arguing a point and getting response `X`, you're going to start assuming that the person you're talking to about that is implying `X`, even if they haven't said it and never intended to.\n* Ignoring refutation happens plenty simply when people get defensive. Admitting you're wrong is hard, and it's much preferable to instead change the topic or find some other way of pretending you were never disproven of anything. This is inherently a logical leap, and that's why it leads to often dumber positions.\n* With regard to _ad nauseam:_ If someone finds a particular point very convincing and easy to understand for themselves, they may find it confusing as to why you don't agree on it. This can lead to them repeatedly trying to explain it more thoroughly and in different words under the assumption that the way they said it was why you didn't get it. I've done this a _lot_ in my past.\n\n-----\n\nWith those examples out of the way, I just want to emphasize the fact that **you should never pretend the presence of logical fallacies is a guarantee of bad faith, much less use it to dehumanize others.** If we let ourselves do that, we'll all tear each other apart under the mistaken assumption that we're rooting out an evil that has no promise of even being present at all. To err is human.","mediaType":"text/markdown"},"published":"2025-05-02T06:20:40.069172+00:00","updated":"2025-05-02T06:22:39.279674+00:00","tag":[{"href":"https://mander.xyz/u/lvxferre","name":"@lvxferre@mander.xyz","type":"Mention"}],"distinguished":false,"language":{"identifier":"en","name":"English"},"audience":"https://beehaw.org/c/chat"},"cc":["https://beehaw.org/c/chat","https://mander.xyz/u/lvxferre"],"tag":[{"href":"https://mander.xyz/u/lvxferre","name":"@lvxferre@mander.xyz","type":"Mention"}],"type":"Update","audience":"https://beehaw.org/c/chat"},"cc":["https://beehaw.org/c/chat/followers"],"type":"Announce","id":"https://beehaw.org/activities/announce/c471154d-63ec-47f2-87fe-d426b0fa7be5"}