you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Mike 2 insightful - 2 funny2 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 2 funny -  (1 child)

One funny way to interpret this pyramid would be that each layer needs the one below it to function, essentially making debate an elaborate ritualized form of name calling, citations included.

[–]knowbodyelse 5 insightful - 1 funny5 insightful - 0 funny6 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

I disagree, a direct refutation does not require anything but a statement that can be refuted, and the willingness to do so. it seems to me to be the reverse: the lower levels need the upper levels to function. oh, wait, in my haste to disagree, I skimmed over the 'funny' interpretation caveat. everyone's idea of what is funny is a little bit different, carry on.