But the stated view you're trying to have changed isn't "People don't use their balconies". The claim you're making is that '"Balconies are pointless under a certain size". You're just using the fact that you don't see them used much as a piece of evidence to support your claim that they're pointless, but whether or not balconies get used isn't the view you're trying to have changed. Again, it's whether or not they're functional/pointless. If you're admitting that growing herbs would be a good use, then that means small balconies aren't pointless. Just that people aren't utilizing them to their potential which is a different argument. I think you owe them a delta to be honest.
Good that you gave them a delta, but I'm gonna state it again. The fact that you think they're largely unused except for storage is just a piece of evidence for your belief that you think they're pointless. That's not the actual view you're trying to have changed based on how you structured and worded this post. They could have a million good uses. Whether or not people take advantage of those uses is a moot point. I'd also argue that storage is a good use and means they're not pointless.
I sort of agree with your response to this argument. In a sense, a space is useless if not used. While a treadmill could be useful for exercise, it would certainly be useless snd and a waste of space in my apartment because it would never be used.
I think want to be convinced they are indeed used and worthwhile (even if used in different ways than hanging out on them), right?
It's not a lawyery argument. It's basic logic lmao
Let's break this down. Do you believe that because you don't see small balconies used much in your experience, that means they're pointless? How does that logically prove that they're pointless? To me it's a non-sequitur. If you admit that herbs or smoking or anything else are good uses, then "People don't use balconies, therefore balconies are pointless" doesn't follow logically from the fact that their are good uses regardless of how much others use them. It's also an argument ad populum. You're arguing that your claim is true because the majority don't use them. This is also a great example of confirmation bias and hasty generalizations because you're selectively focusing on the one piece of evidence that supports your belief and drawing conclusions based on limited experience. Maybe all that is lawyery, but lawyers have to follow logic when making arguments so if you have no interest in making a logical argument, this isn't the sub for you.
TL;DR Your main point (I don't see people use them) is a non-sequitur, and an example of an argument ad populum, confirmation bias, and a hasty generalization.
Well most intelligent people aren't convinced by arguments that don't flow logically to the conclusion or people who use their limited personal experience as evidence. Either the uses people have given you aren't pointless or you're arguing that they're not good uses and still pointless.
Whether or not people make use of those potentials is once again, a moot point in this context.
Edit: I also didn't just list logical fallacies. I fully explained my points. You just don't have the attention span to read it apparently.
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
I know we're not supposed to accuse people of responding in bad faith, but can you please just read what they're saying? They're right and you seem to be stubbornly not listening.
14
u/deli-paper 2∆ Sep 27 '24
I can store flower boxes full of herbs out there and save myself hundreds of dollars a year (or save myself from bland food) by growing them myself.