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
Comment on Films where a Predator dies are a failed coming of age films.
Decoy321@lemmy.world 11 months agoHow do you define it, then? The definition I’m aware of is for an inference that doesn’t follow from the premise.
techwooded@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
PapaStevesy@midwest.social 11 months ago
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.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 11 months ago
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
Swagicus@lemmy.world 11 months ago
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-sequitor: "Okay, so based on this finding, ".
Non-sequitor: “Okay, so that’s great, but Michigan beating Ohio State means this is irrelevant”.