this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
719 points (96.7% liked)
Comic Strips
21726 readers
2195 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You didn’t refute how I explained your interpretation of their sentence, even said it would have made more sense if structured like that. I pointed out that this interpretation requires them to contradict themself. You said it’s right there in their reply. If “it” isn’t the contradiction, then what is “it? What is your interpretation of what they said? Did they contradict themself?
Basically my point is: you are arguing that their message has a contradiction in it. You are arguing that they both stated that they believe or otherwise “can say with a straight face” that a housing only solution does not solve the homelessness problem, and that they believe it can solve the housing solution but not as well as adding assistance. That is a contradiction.
You are ignoring their use of the words ‘combination’ and ‘and’, interpreting their statement as an ‘or’ logically where ‘housing only’ OR ‘housing only with assistance works’. They literally said assistance and housing, with emphasis on and. You turned that and into an or by conflating their reasoning for their position as a clarification of what they meant.
Their logical argument has the predicate(reasoning): Some people without the extra assistance will not fully benefit.
And their hypothesis, argument, or logical statement is: Housing AND assistance is what will solve homelessness.
At no point did they say that housing without assistance could in anyway sufficiently solve homelessness, not in any way that would follow in a logical argument.
In any case, everyone is making assumptions here. It’s literally the basis of communication and it’s not a negative thing. You must assume certain things about what a person says in order to communicate. You must assume that they are saying things they believe unless there is a reason not to. You must assume that they are using words in the way that you understand, or otherwise you must come to a conclusion about the meaning of those words in order for communication to be effective. Assumptions aren’t a bad thing, just don’t assume bad things.
I didn't realise i was supposed to be refuting it, but here it is:
Should be
The second half of the reply is modifier to the first (i previously said addition/clarification, modifier is better)
I'm not, and i quote:
Not really.
Though i see what you mean about it not matching exactly what was said.
I'm counting the refutation of the original Housing Only premise as a partial argument for the implication of a Housing + [1..*] solution.
Partly taking in to account the variety of additional things suggested as implying an etc. rather than things being a finite list because the first part and second part have different numbers of additional things listed.
I can see how that might just be my specific interpretation though.
I think what i've done here is read "assistance" as an undefined length list of additional things including the ones specified, rather than just the defined list provided.
My bad.
I would take all assumptions to be neutral until proven, if i start applying morality to assumptions it might interfere with my ability to verify those assumptions. That goes for both "good" and "bad".