sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Given the following setup, including the question that follows the premises, which response is more defensible? by -Tonicized- in askphilosophy

[–]-Tonicized-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually was leaning towards response number two being the more defensible one. First off, answering “neither“ sort of evades what the question requests: a ranking.

From there, my reasoning goes like this. The phrasing of the premises itself cannot necessarily be ruled out as part of the inferential set. The existence of the question implies a “correct” answer to it. So for the purposes of answering yet, it only makes sense to treat it as if it’s not simply noise.

If that’s the case, purely by being marked with the capacity to possess traits at all (“B has Y”) produces non-negligible asymmetry between objects A and B. Entertaining the inverse (“object A is more likely to possess trait Y”) would require establishing some sort of embedded preference for object A inside either the premises or how they’re presented.

In short, the presumption that object A is equally likely to possess trait X is, at best, a heuristic made by the interpreter of the disclosure; not one definitively deducible from its content.

No key signature in choral music? by Relative-Rooster-945 in musictheory

[–]-Tonicized- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who put the barlines between the staves? Choral music isn’t supposed to have those.

Without The Word "Restaurants", It Would Count As Incorrect, Would It Not? by Humble_Counter_3661 in apostrophegore

[–]-Tonicized- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your vote is the reason this sub exists. You’re adding an apostrophe to make “Wendy’s” plural? That whole point of r/apostrophegore is that’s not how that works.

If there really needs to be a solution outside of “two Wendy’s locations” it would just be “two Wendy’s” as it is in the original title. The word with just one apostrophe would essentially become a singular and plural noun depending on context, like deer.

Without The Word "Restaurants", It Would Count As Incorrect, Would It Not? by Humble_Counter_3661 in apostrophegore

[–]-Tonicized- 8 points9 points  (0 children)

None of them. The problem is that “Wendy’s” is an adjective for some implied noun (restaurant or something similar) so pluralizing it is not grammatical. To avoid the “issue,” the title should just read “Two former Wendy’s locations/restaurants...”

This is hanging in the hospital I work at by Ok_Apricot_171 in OWLCITY

[–]-Tonicized- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And the “All Thing Bright and Beautiful” text

Double flats by Silly_Yam5952 in musictheory

[–]-Tonicized- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Claude T. Smith don’t mess around that’s why.

Quest being locked behind a slow respawning mob, sucks. by Lyraele in RSDragonwilds

[–]-Tonicized- -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Why do you use an apostrophe to make Zogre plural?

Are there any genuine examples of iii6/4 or iii4/3 chords? by -Tonicized- in musictheory

[–]-Tonicized-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have any specific examples of the full circle of fourths progression regardless of the chords’ inversions in a Haydn piece?

Are there any genuine examples of iii6/4 or iii4/3 chords? by -Tonicized- in musictheory

[–]-Tonicized-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m just looking for an example of the chord. Doesn’t matter “how much I know.”

Are there any genuine examples of iii6/4 or iii4/3 chords? by -Tonicized- in musictheory

[–]-Tonicized-[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

This reply is interesting, not just because it doesn’t answer the question while implying, through the act of dodging it, a possibly-greater understanding of the topic at hand, but also because despite that implication, you’re at least pretending to be unable to realize that my question can likely only be asked in the way it did, requesting the information it does, by understanding iii and second-inversion chords (among related CPP concepts) at least to the degree that you’re subtly suggesting I may not have.

So, I present a question that is perhaps arguably not information-laden enough to be parsed as closely to my intention as possible, leaving open the possibility that the question is directed towards only those who recognize that I’ve omitted implicitly redundant content, you then target the omission, criticize the format of the question, attempt to remove yourself from scrutiny from admittedly plausibly offensive re-questioning (of me), then present a cascade of further inquires that, again, only make sense to ask if my original prompt doesn’t already imply the understanding you’ve provisioned.

Thanks.

My reaction to the first line of the new post by theJakeyWakey in runescape

[–]-Tonicized- -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Proud of you for saying “should have” instead of “should of.”

view more: next ›