Is this a faithful recreation of the version of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement with 2 additional bottom levels?

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, Extended Version.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

I ask, because, I'm not sure if the 2nd from bottom level was called "suppression", nor am I sure (at all) what was the elaboration in the "violence" layer. ... But I hope I've at least remained faithful to the spirit of it. Eager to hear any corrections. Or even, if anyone finds the original extended version, that would be great to compare to.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I just did this today in another thread. Currently at name calling, hopefully stops there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hope better, higher.

    Hopefully you can raise it to centrally refuting the point.

    Or at least to counterargument, above mere contradiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The problem is if the other person doesn't go higher. You can completely refute the central claim of their argument. But if they simply respond by essentially shoving their fingers in their ears yelling "I can't hear you!" the argument will go no further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yup, it is problematic when others keep their arguments nearer the bottom. But at least your argument will have been valid. Even if they do attempt childish suppression.

    One can even reference Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, and some will still remain on the attack at the bottom. As just happened to me on another thread on lemmy. It harms their credibility, and their cognitive ability.

  • source
  • parent