Opinion of people who don’t understand what a hypothetical is?

[VBM]

These are the type of people who go into a thread about “What if X happened,” and then they’ll say that it is literally impossible for X to happen for a certain reason, completely neglecting to answer the hypothetical question in order to explain the impossibility of something when the probability of said thing happening is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Anyways, HP who either don’t understand the meaning of “if” or “hypothetical,” or feel uncomfortable about thinking if the hypothetical happened, so they’d rather dodge the question

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

These are the type of people who go into a thread about “What if X happened,” and then they’ll say that it is literally impossible for X to happen for a certain reason, completely neglecting to answer the hypothetical question in order to explain the impossibility of something when the probability of said thing happening is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Anyways, HP who either don’t understand the meaning of “if” or “hypothetical,” or feel uncomfortable about thinking if the hypothetical happened, so they’d rather dodge the question

Cope harder.

[VBM]

These are the type of people who go into a thread about “What if X happened,” and then they’ll say that it is literally impossible for X to happen for a certain reason, completely neglecting to answer the hypothetical question in order to explain the impossibility of something when the probability of said thing happening is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Anyways, HP who either don’t understand the meaning of “if” or “hypothetical,” or feel uncomfortable about thinking if the hypothetical happened, so they’d rather dodge the question

Cope harder.

Ok...?

[John Dule]

Not as bad as the people who don't understand how analogies work.

[VBM]

Not as bad as the people who don't understand how analogies work.

From my experience, there’s actually a lot of overlap between these two types of people

[dkxdjy]

What is a hypothetical

[It’s so Joever]

Not as bad as the people who don't understand how analogies work.

From my experience, there’s actually a lot of overlap between these two types of people

Overlap?
That’s putting it mildly.
The Venn diagrams of these two create one perfect circle.

[Biden his time]

I find it very likely that this post inspired your topic:

So if some black person were going around saying that black people should just do whatever white people say, a white person is a HP if they call him/her an Uncle Tom?

We can cross that bridge when Tim Scott says blacks should go back into slavery.

alphabet soup: <unhinged nonsense>
everyone else: no, wtf is wrong with you?
alphabet soup: but what if <absurd hypothetical> ?

Is that right?

[Xing]

If the hypothetical is interesting and invites lively discussion, then I can get being frustrated by people simply saying it's impossible. If it's wishful thinking on the part of a poster who wants to trigger/own the other side, or something absurd that doesn't really lead to much of an interesting discussion, then I don't think people rolling their eyes or pointing out the absurdity don't actually understand what a hypothetical is. I mean, what's even the point of people asking what will happen if Republicans win D.C.?

[VBM]

I find it very likely that this post inspired your topic:

So if some black person were going around saying that black people should just do whatever white people say, a white person is a HP if they call him/her an Uncle Tom?

We can cross that bridge when Tim Scott says blacks should go back into slavery.

alphabet soup: <unhinged nonsense>
everyone else: no, wtf is wrong with you?
alphabet soup: but what if <absurd hypothetical> ?

Is that right?

No actually, but it is a pretty good example of people taking hypotheticals way to seriously and/or not getting the point

[VBM]

If the hypothetical is interesting and invites lively discussion, then I can get being frustrated by people simply saying it's impossible. If it's wishful thinking on the part of a poster who wants to trigger/own the other side, or something absurd that doesn't really lead to much of an interesting discussion, then I don't think people rolling their eyes or pointing out the absurdity don't actually understand what a hypothetical is. I mean, what's even the point of people asking what will happen if Republicans win D.C.?

I’m mainly talking about people who will look at a thread like “What would have happened if the French won the Battle of Agincourt” and then go on some long, irrelevant rant about how it’s literally impossible for the French to have won.

[Kingpoleon]

Not as bad as the people who don't understand how analogies work.

To be fair, arguments from analogies are perhaps the weakest sort of argument, just as water vapor is the weakest form of water.

[Torie]

People as to whom whatever their merits may be otherwise, are tedious when it comes to engaging in colloquy. The also should not be practicing law, but I digress.

[John Dule]

Not as bad as the people who don't understand how analogies work.

To be fair, arguments from analogies are perhaps the weakest sort of argument, just as water vapor is the weakest form of water.

Usually when I use analogous arguments, I'm doing so to illustrate how a person's line of reasoning could be repurposed in a way they wouldn't agree with, thus demonstrating that this argument alone isn't sufficient to prove their point. However, the concept routinely escapes them. A trivial example:

Person: "You just hate AOC because you're jealous of her. She's accomplished much more than you have."
Dule: "You could say the same thing about Pol Pot. He accomplished much more than either of us ever have. Are we 'just jealous' for criticizing him?"
Person: "Are you seriously comparing Pol Pot to AOC?!?!?!"

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If the hypothetical is interesting and invites lively discussion, then I can get being frustrated by people simply saying it's impossible. If it's wishful thinking on the part of a poster who wants to trigger/own the other side, or something absurd that doesn't really lead to much of an interesting discussion, then I don't think people rolling their eyes or pointing out the absurdity don't actually understand what a hypothetical is. I mean, what's even the point of people asking what will happen if Republicans win D.C.?

I’m mainly talking about people who will look at a thread like “What would have happened if the French won the Battle of Agincourt” and then go on some long, irrelevant rant about how it’s literally impossible for the French to have won.

Obviously the battle was utterly unwinnable for France. The foolish French knights fit so well the role of uptight blueblood believing their own propaganda that they were pathologically unable to defeat the great army of England, with its humble, practical infantry and flawless battle thinking. France never stood a chance, as its nobles were too fixated on chivalry and honor to be able to fight as effective warriors on any occasion during the Hundred Years War, with Agincourt being simply the most famous of many defeats. That's why they got smoked. Isn't it amazing how Shakespeare is so historically accurate?

[S019]

Probably HP, but what is more annoying is people who base their entire arguments on hypotheticals, those people are definite HPs.