this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
137 points (91.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
29632 readers
1225 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's non-sequitur. Predators go on more than one hunt in their lives. Your statement would only be valid if their 1st hunt was their only one.
That's not what non-sequitur means.
Do you know those moving strips in the airport that are like horizontal escalators? In my mind that's a sequitur, so a non sequitur would be just a piece of floor
......Anyway thank you for reading
A non-sequitur would be walking 5 feet across the floor and finding yourself in a jungle somewhere. In a place not connected to the place you just came from.
How do you define it, then? The definition I'm aware of is for an inference that doesn't follow from the premise.
Literally, you're right - in Latin it means "not following". But in conventional usage, non-sequitur is more for things that are so completely out of place for the conversation.
Not a non-sequitur: "Okay, so based on this finding, [insert something topical but wrong]".
Non-sequitur: "Okay, so that's great, but Michigan beating Ohio State means this is irrelevant".
(edit because I did not realize the formatting I used for my non-sequitur example caused it not to render)
Your definition for non-sequitur is correct, however the conclusion that Predators are failing to come of age is a logical conclusion of the stated premise. The actual issue, which you pointed out, is that of using a false or faulty premise (that all Predators in the movies are on their first hunts). The validity of an argument isn’t a function of how true a premise is. So you were right that op was wrong in their conclusions, you just mislabeled the issue
It's all about the same movie series canon, none of this is non-sequitur. They would have to be talking about Predator canon and then just start talking about Terminator or something. And even that's not a great example, because Arnold is in both of them.
One really shouldn't pay more than $15 for a big mac. It's just not that high in price yet even with inflation.
☝️That is a non-sequitur