2592: False Dichotomy - Revision history

CalibansCreations: /* Explanation */ hi tori

2024-11-18T09:44:36Z

‎Explanation: hi tori

Elektrizikekswerk: Remoived some unlikely interpretation with a more likely one, moved some stuff to trivia section

2024-06-26T12:54:12Z

Remoived some unlikely interpretation with a more likely one, moved some stuff to trivia section

162.158.86.201: /* Explanation */

2023-05-27T16:27:18Z

‎Explanation

TheusafBOT: Reverted edit 303767 by 108.162.241.213 to 272500

2023-01-01T00:23:26Z

Reverted edit 303767 by 108.162.241.213 to 272500

108.162.241.213: /* Explanation */

2023-01-01T00:22:28Z

‎Explanation

172.70.130.245: Undo revision 271043 by Explain xkcd server admin (talk)

2022-05-21T01:18:30Z

Undo revision 271043 by Explain xkcd server admin (talk)

Show changes

Explain xkcd server admin at 21:37, 20 May 2022

2022-05-20T21:37:35Z

Show changes

Jacky720: rv

2022-05-04T23:56:55Z

Show changes

Ex Kay Cee Dee at 23:56, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T23:56:51Z

Show changes

Jacky720: rv

2022-05-04T23:45:29Z

Show changes

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 A dichotomy is two alternatives which are normally mutually exclusive (such as the dichotomy between a flat Earth and non-flat Earth). A {{w|false dichotomy}} is a {{w|logical fallacy}} based on an incorrect perception of limited options (for example: if the page background isn't white, it is black).
-[[Cueball]] has apparently made one such error and is being called out by [[White Hat]] for it. Upon having this pointed out to him, Cueball says that we must '''embrace''' false dichotomies, because the '''only other option''' is {{w|cannibalism}}. This statement is another false dichotomy, as presenting false dichotomies is not the only alternative to cannibalism{{Citation needed}}. The reverse (that cannibalism is incompatible with expressing false dichotomies) is also not potentially true, as eating people may eventually result in having nobody you need to present false dichotomies to.
+[[Cueball]] has apparently made one such error and is being called out by [[White Hat]] for it. Upon having this pointed out to him, Cueball says that we must '''embrace''' false dichotomies, because the '''only other option''' is {{w|cannibalism}}. This statement is another false dichotomy, as presenting false dichotomies is not the only alternative to cannibalism.{{Citation needed}} The reverse (that cannibalism is incompatible with expressing false dichotomies) is also not potentially true, as eating people may eventually result in having nobody you need to present false dichotomies to.
 Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first, at which referring to cannibalism is most likely a {{w|Non_sequitur_(literary_device)|non-sequitur}} argument.
 The title text states that there are two kinds of dichotomies, making a dichotomy in itself. Due to three types of dichotomy being mentioned, and only two being foreshadowed, this statement is itself a surprise trichotomy, or three-parted choice. The title text is a variation of the [https://tropedia.fandom.com/wiki/There_Are_Two_Kinds_of_People_in_the_World "Two kinds of People"] joke.  The classic math nerd variant is "There are three kinds of people in the world, those who can count, and those who can't."  Alternatively, it may refer to a variation about {{w|base 2|binary}}. The original joke usually goes something like this: "There are 10 types of people: those who know binary, and those who don't." The variation is usually something like the following: "There are 10 types of people: those who know binary, and those who don't, and those who weren't expecting a {{w|base 3|ternary}} joke." Another version of this kind of joke is "there are two kinds of people: those who can extrapolate from an incomplete data set,"
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 [[Cueball]] has apparently made one such error and is being called out by [[White Hat]] for it. Upon having this pointed out to him, Cueball says that we must '''embrace''' false dichotomies, because the '''only other option''' is {{w|cannibalism}}. This statement is another false dichotomy, as presenting false dichotomies is not the only alternative to cannibalism{{Citation needed}}. The reverse (that cannibalism is incompatible with expressing false dichotomies) is also not potentially true, as eating people may eventually result in having nobody you need to present false dichotomies to.
-Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first.
+Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first, at which referring to cannibalism is most likely a {{w|Non_sequitur_(literary_device)|non-sequitur}} argument.
 The title text states that there are two kinds of dichotomies, making a dichotomy in itself. Due to three types of dichotomy being mentioned, and only two being foreshadowed, this statement is itself a surprise trichotomy, or three-parted choice. The title text is a variation of the [https://tropedia.fandom.com/wiki/There_Are_Two_Kinds_of_People_in_the_World "Two kinds of People"] joke.  The classic math nerd variant is "There are three kinds of people in the world, those who can count, and those who can't."  Alternatively, it may refer to a variation about {{w|base 2|binary}}. The original joke usually goes something like this: "There are 10 types of people: those who know binary, and those who don't." The variation is usually something like the following: "There are 10 types of people: those who know binary, and those who don't, and those who weren't expecting a {{w|base 3|ternary}} joke." Another version of this kind of joke is "there are two kinds of people: those who can extrapolate from an incomplete data set,"
 ==Transcript==
@@ Line 26: / Line 21: @@
 :White Hat: That's a false dichotomy!
 :Cueball: Yes, but we have to embrace false dichotomies, because the only alternative is cannibalism.
 {{comic discussion}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 27 May 2023
Line 19:		Line 19:

	The word {{wiktionary\|trichotomy}} is a relative neologism, to be understood as to mean "divided into (or amongst) three parts", having replaced the original prefix "di-" (a factor of two, either doubled or, by context, halved) with that of "tri-" (similarly tripled/thirded). Strictly, though, {{wiktionary\|dichotomy}} more directly stems from Greek elements that say "apart, I cut", with "apart" being represented by the "dicho-" (itself being roughly "into two", or to separate) which does not have a direct "tricho-" equivalent, although it does ultimately derive from "duo", Greek for "two". This is the kind of linguistic nuance that [[Randall]] clearly enjoys, yet may also happily or carelessly (mis)use without compunction.		The word {{wiktionary\|trichotomy}} is a relative neologism, to be understood as to mean "divided into (or amongst) three parts", having replaced the original prefix "di-" (a factor of two, either doubled or, by context, halved) with that of "tri-" (similarly tripled/thirded). Strictly, though, {{wiktionary\|dichotomy}} more directly stems from Greek elements that say "apart, I cut", with "apart" being represented by the "dicho-" (itself being roughly "into two", or to separate) which does not have a direct "tricho-" equivalent, although it does ultimately derive from "duo", Greek for "two". This is the kind of linguistic nuance that [[Randall]] clearly enjoys, yet may also happily or carelessly (mis)use without compunction.
		+
		+	It can also be translated through the other Greek word, θρίξ (thríx), turning "trichotomy" into "cutting hair off". The fact that both characters in this strip don't have visible hair is probably just a coincidence.

	==Transcript==		==Transcript==

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:23, 1 January 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first.		Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first.
−
−
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠁⠀⢀⣴⣿⠛⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⠀⢿⣿⡧⢼⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡾⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣤⣄⡀⠀⠈⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣤⣀⡀⠀⠁⠀⣴⠶⢛⢏⠡⡩⢛⠛⠋⢁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⣤⡞⠩⠫⡹⢁⡈⠉⠉⢁⠀⠐⠒⠩⠄⢁⠀⠀⠀⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠠⣀⠅⠐⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠡⠄⠀⠘⠿⠃⠀⠈⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⢥⡀⠀⠀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⢚⣆⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠡⠀⠀⠀⠠⣞⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣗⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢁⠀⠀⠰⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⡀⠄⢺⣝⠀⠀⠠⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠔⠀⠀⡄⢀⣏⠅⠈⠀⠂⠄⢀⠀~~
−	~~⠄⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠬⣧⠂⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢤⡡⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠫⣳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡀⠀⢠⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣇⠘⣆⡄⢀⣀⢠⡔⠞⠁⠠⣎⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~
−	~~⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡲⣀⡁⠉⠀⠉⠀⠀⡬⠮⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀~~

	The false dichotomy Cueball appears to be referring to is the notion that those identified as human must not be eaten, but even closely related animals are not human and can be eaten, i.e. species can be divided clearly between "human" and "food". If this dichotomy is not accepted, then consuming any species that shares, for instance, any significant percentage of DNA with humans could be considered a measure of cannibalism.		The false dichotomy Cueball appears to be referring to is the notion that those identified as human must not be eaten, but even closely related animals are not human and can be eaten, i.e. species can be divided clearly between "human" and "food". If this dichotomy is not accepted, then consuming any species that shares, for instance, any significant percentage of DNA with humans could be considered a measure of cannibalism.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 1 January 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first.		Cueball has thus created another false dichotomy to excuse his first.
		+
		+
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠁⠀⢀⣴⣿⠛⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⠀⢿⣿⡧⢼⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡾⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣤⣄⡀⠀⠈⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣤⣀⡀⠀⠁⠀⣴⠶⢛⢏⠡⡩⢛⠛⠋⢁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⣤⡞⠩⠫⡹⢁⡈⠉⠉⢁⠀⠐⠒⠩⠄⢁⠀⠀⠀⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠠⣀⠅⠐⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠡⠄⠀⠘⠿⠃⠀⠈⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⢥⡀⠀⠀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⢚⣆⠀⠀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠡⠀⠀⠀⠠⣞⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣗⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢁⠀⠀⠰⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⡀⠄⢺⣝⠀⠀⠠⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠔⠀⠀⡄⢀⣏⠅⠈⠀⠂⠄⢀⠀
		+	⠄⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠬⣧⠂⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢤⡡⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠫⣳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡀⠀⢠⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣇⠘⣆⡄⢀⣀⢠⡔⠞⠁⠠⣎⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
		+	⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡲⣀⡁⠉⠀⠉⠀⠀⡬⠮⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

	The false dichotomy Cueball appears to be referring to is the notion that those identified as human must not be eaten, but even closely related animals are not human and can be eaten, i.e. species can be divided clearly between "human" and "food". If this dichotomy is not accepted, then consuming any species that shares, for instance, any significant percentage of DNA with humans could be considered a measure of cannibalism.		The false dichotomy Cueball appears to be referring to is the notion that those identified as human must not be eaten, but even closely related animals are not human and can be eaten, i.e. species can be divided clearly between "human" and "food". If this dichotomy is not accepted, then consuming any species that shares, for instance, any significant percentage of DNA with humans could be considered a measure of cannibalism.