Talk:1432: The Sake of Argument

2025-04-20T01:36:28Z

172.70.254.211:

Arguments are good. They are how you discover the truth.

In my experience when someone begins a hypothetical with "for the sake of argument" The hypothetical being explored is almost always a direct exploration of the argument being put forward by the person they are speaking to, so to my mind the perfect response to the second panel would have been: "You admit you were wrong then, Excellent!" ;-) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.211|108.162.250.211]] 07:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:Then your experience is wrong, or you don't understand what is being communicated.

:In contrast, it is often used alongs the lines of "OK, I see that you don't agree with my viewpoint, so for the sake of argument, pretend that you do agree with my viewpoint". I suppose this is an effort to try and get the other person to explore your views by stepping into them. For example: "Ok I know that you think that drink driving is fine, but for the sake of argument imagine that your dog had just been run over by a drunk driver" --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO could be vaguely related to the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Monty Python's Argument Clinic] [[User:Jkotek|Jkotek]]
:IMHO "related" to, no matter how vaguely, would be a strong choice of word. At best, I could imagine "inspired by" - after all, Cueball has barely presented a connected series of statements, much less apparently one intended to establish a proposition, definite or otherwise - it's clearly the automatic gainsaying of anything Ponytail says... [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::No it isn't! ;-) [[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 12:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::: For the sake of argument, say it is. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.125|108.162.217.125]] 22:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)BK

"Rather than getting frustrated at being derailed, Ponytail instead seizes on this and decides they should get a boat, and that the Devil can come too." - I'm reading the title text a bit differently: it's not Ponytail being not angry and chiming in, but actually having no words (indicated by '...') and then it's Cueball again taunting her even more with inviting the devil. [[User:Zefiro|Zefiro]] ([[User talk:Zefiro|talk]]) 09:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:I just wanted to say that I agree with Zefiro here.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.173|173.245.56.173]] 09:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

::On reading again, I agree. I missed that the ellipsis was a seperate section, rather than the beginning of 'For arguments sake we should get a boat' --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 11:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Could he possibly be making a pun? "For the sake of the 'ARGH' you meant," perhaps? [[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Cueball is taking the "for the sake of argument" too literally, as "in order to create more to argue on". Also "advocate". Also, "device" in the title text (literal physical transportation device vs rhetorical device). The explanation as of now doesn't seem to realize this. [[User:Matega|Matega]] ([[User talk:Matega|talk]]) 15:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Devils advocate and copied from Wikipedia: "During the canonization process employed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), popularly known as the Devil's advocate (Latin: advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate.[2] It was this person’s job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, and so on. The Devil's advocate opposed God's advocate (Latin: advocatus Dei; also known as the Promoter of the Cause), whose task was to make the argument in favor of canonization. This task is now performed by the Promoter of Justice (promotor iustitiae), who is in charge of examining how accurate is the inquiry on the saintliness of the candidate." {{unsigned|Cobble}}

Are we sure this isn't just Beret Guy going casual? {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.164}}

The "oh, like a boat" is a reference to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.240.36|108.162.240.36]] 11:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
:No it isn't. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 05:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two unspoken premises when arguing. The first is that both you and your interlocutor are reasonable (you wouldn't try to reason with someone that is unreasonable, would you?), and the second is that you both agree on some premise (you can't come to a conclusion from a premise you don't have). The usefulness of arguing from a premise that you don't have is that if your premise ever changes (like if you gain new information), then you already have your new conclusion at the ready. It's important because perfectly rational people should agree on the same "if X, then Y", but "reality is X" and "I think reality is X" are two different statements. With that in mind, Devil's Advocate as rhetorical device has an obvious purpose in that it allows you to address your own fallability and to look at the world outside yourself. Claiming to be infallible may not be unreasonable, but it's factually wrong. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.123.199|162.158.123.199]] 14:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The Devil doesn't need an advocate. He advocates his positions quite well on his own. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.151|172.70.38.151]] 13:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

:There is no requirement for a thing to be needed to engage in it, and you certainly aren't an authority on which things are needed.

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-11T19:49:27Z

172.70.254.211:

Shouldn't "Anachronym" be "Anachronism"? The listed items aren't archaic acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.83|162.158.63.83]] 17:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:No, "-nym" means name, so this is names that are outdated [[Special:Contributions/104.23.190.60|104.23.190.60]] 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he should be paying with paper money. He can easily pay by credit card ... using virtual debit card on his phone. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 17:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
: Paper money might not be made from paper anymore - at least, it isn't in NZ, where I live. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.130|172.69.0.130]] 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think “paper money” is about paper no longer being made from papyrus. US bank notes are printed on rag paper, which is indeed a kind of paper despite containing little or no wood pulp.--[[User:Seakingsoyuz|Seakingsoyuz]] ([[User talk:Seakingsoyuz|talk]]) 18:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:: I don't think 'paper money' should be designated as being made of paper here. Everyone knows that paper money doesn't feel or act like paper. It's incredibly hard to rip. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:The "card" in credit card seems to come from Latin and Greek for a piece of paper or papyrus. So a credit card, now made of plastic, metal, semiconductors, etc. might be considered an anachronym. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Adults who "enjoy" rubber ducks include programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.27|172.71.95.27]] 18:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The word money came from words that meant coin. The word coin evidently came from wedge shaped. Not quite anachronym, though somewhat anachronism. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Surprised "lead pencil" didn't make the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.109|172.68.12.109]] 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Duck Tape is no longer made from ducks! [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"digital money" shouldn't be listed as what "paper money" is actually made out of. Nobody would say "I'm paying with paper money" if they are paying with some digital currency. The anachronism is "paper money" being actually made of linen or whatever hi-tech fibers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.211|172.70.254.211]] 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC) anonymous user

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1432: The Sake of Argument

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge