Now we are getting to the point: You are saying that an action doesn’t have to be identical to be the same. There can be variance.
All actions have variance, but the level of accuracy is only relevant to the prescribed goal. In the example of a basketball, the ball only needs to enter the top of the hoop from a given range of angles, at a range of speeds. As long as you are within this tolerance you will achieve the goal of making a basket. The whole concept of the game relies on this repeatability.
Now, let’s say this is the case. Look at a random professional basketball game. If it’s as repeatable as you say and the whole concept of the game relies on this repeatability (so without that repeatability there is no game of basketball), then that means every single shot will go into the basket. Otherwise it’s not as repeatable as you claim. Is that true?
If this repeatability is so simple and easy to make, why would anyone need to practice for it? Do you think that pro basketball players just show up for the games and never practice?
repeating your position through a series of pedantic semantics, goal post shifting or false premises is going to change the outcome of this argument
Now the cool and fancy but inapplicable terms arrive, when the real arguments disappear.
If you want to, I can supply some other non-fitting terms as well: Selection bias, survivorship bias, stockholm syndrome, strawman argument. Happy now? Throwing non-fitting fallacy names out doesn’t make you look smarter.
Now we are getting to the point: You are saying that an action doesn’t have to be identical to be the same. There can be variance.
Now, let’s say this is the case. Look at a random professional basketball game. If it’s as repeatable as you say and the whole concept of the game relies on this repeatability (so without that repeatability there is no game of basketball), then that means every single shot will go into the basket. Otherwise it’s not as repeatable as you claim. Is that true?
If this repeatability is so simple and easy to make, why would anyone need to practice for it? Do you think that pro basketball players just show up for the games and never practice?
Now the cool and fancy but inapplicable terms arrive, when the real arguments disappear.
If you want to, I can supply some other non-fitting terms as well: Selection bias, survivorship bias, stockholm syndrome, strawman argument. Happy now? Throwing non-fitting fallacy names out doesn’t make you look smarter.