The annual arenas are held twice a year, but not all...

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #240:

You are diverting the discussion, because we were not talking about Apple specifically, but about whether a branded name can be misleading or not. And for this you need to refute the two arguments I outlined above.

And for the third time, I explain: the fact that at the moment of product selection the misunderstanding disappears with new information (just like it disappears when one learns the history of a tournament) does not cancel the fact that it can arise before a person encounters this new information. That is, the name can be misleading if someone is unfamiliar with the brand, which fits the very conditions you yourself set.
Misleading means creating a false or distorted impression in a person or group, leading to wrong actions or decisions. The name Apple can indeed lead to wrong actions if someone thought apples were being sold, but in fact it was electronics. That person might have wanted to buy fruit, but instead wasted time visiting a store they didn’t need.
So what you said does not refute what I said.

The concept of a "brand" has clear criteria. And the names of official tournaments on Lichess do fall under the definition of a brand. “Real” brands are simply those that meet the definition of a brand.

And you haven’t disproven the validity of the “World Series” example. I don’t even need to prove the validity of the Apple case (though I already have), because to refute you it’s enough that at least one example works, not necessarily this one. Why should I spend time defending a more debatable example when I can demonstrate the validity of a less debatable one? Just so you can more easily divert the discussion? I’m not going to play along.

Explain to me: how exactly does the (in)validity of the Apple example disprove the validity of other examples, particularly the “World Series”? And how does it disprove my second argument?

Until you disprove the validity of the less debatable “World Series” example, there is no point in arguing about Apple.

So unless you can show that World Series is not misleading, your argument remains unproven. The validity of Apple as an example does not invalidate the others, and focusing on Apple only diverts the discussion.

What does
<Why should I spend time defending a more debatable example" mean>?
You either admit that the example is incorrect, or it is not controversial and has the same force as the others.

Accordingly, since you are still defending it, there is no point in moving on to others.

So, you are saying that a person can waste time by going to the wrong store.

In order to go to the wrong store, he needs to look at the address. To do this, he will go to the website, where he will already understand that this is not an apple store.
Moreover, there may not be such a store in his city at all. This means that he will have to go somewhere specially or fly.
Considering the fact that the store is called an apple, and not apples, it is even more necessary to make sure that this is not the only apple bought and whether it is worth the trip/trip/flight.
And when he is convinced, he will again find himself in the choice category, where everything will become clear.
And is this a store at all?
But for this you do not need to study the history of the brand.
The category "choice of goods" is enough, similar to "choice of arena".

And we return to the same conditions, for the purity of the experiment: choice on the site.
You still need to prove that a person can mistakenly choose a phone instead of an apple.
Note that we have not even reached the purchase stage.
Analogy: choice of arena, participation in a tournament.

@Italiya said in #241:

What does
<Why should I spend time defending a more debatable example" mean>?
You either admit that the example is incorrect, or it is not controversial and has the same force as the others.
It means that I can prove its relevance (which I am essentially doing), but it will take me more time than proving the relevance of less debatable examples. And since I only need to prove the relevance of at least one example from the list, not disprove all examples, then from an argumentation standpoint it is quicker and less resource-intensive to focus on less debatable ones.

Especially because we are having a constructive debate in the name of truth (right?) and not just arguing for the sake of it. Which means the main goal is:
To prove or disprove the thesis "Brands, by definition, cannot be misleading."

@Italiya said in #241:

Accordingly, since you are still defending it, there is no point in moving on to others.
I’m pointing out that you need to disprove "World Series" first, otherwise discussing Apple is just a waste of time. As long as "World Series" is relevant, the outcome of our debate about Apple does not matter. I’ve already told you: if you just really want to prove me wrong about something, it would be easier to look for grammar mistakes. That would also be unrelated to the core issue, but at least you’d have a better chance there.

@Italiya said in #241:

In order to go to the wrong store, he needs to look at the address. To do this, he will go to the website, where he will already understand that this is not an apple store.
Visiting a website to find the address is not always necessary. Directions to “Apple” or “Apple Store” can appear in urban navigation (airports, malls, street signs). In that case, the brand can still mislead someone unfamiliar with it and result in wrong decisions.

@Italiya said in #241:

Moreover, there may not be such a store in his city at all. This means that he will have to go somewhere specially or fly.
Considering the fact that the store is called an apple, and not apples, it is even more necessary to make sure that this is not the only apple bought and whether it is worth the trip/trip/flight.
And when he is convinced, he will again find himself in the choice category, where everything will become clear.
And is this a store at all?
But for this you do not need to study the history of the brand.
The category "choice of goods" is enough, similar to "choice of arena".
If such a store does not exist in the city, that is irrelevant to my example. The situation you describe, where the Apple brand does not mislead, does not disprove my example where the Apple brand can mislead.

"Apple" can also mean a tree. Whether it’s "apple tree" or "apple fruit," the association still points to apples, and someone unfamiliar with the brand may assume the store is related to selling apples. So the issue here is associative meaning that arises when a person sees the word "Apple." We are talking about a brand and misleading. Misleading can occur due to a false associative link, even if the person later receives clarifying information.

Therefore, your case changes nothing. One does not need to study the history of the brand, but additional information is required to avoid the misunderstanding. Misleading can still happen before obtaining that extra information. And this already fits the definition of "misleading," even if the misunderstanding later disappears. The same applies to arenas: misunderstanding can disappear after introduction to the history of tournaments.

@Italiya said in #241:

And we return to the same conditions, for the purity of the experiment: choice on the site.
You still need to prove that a person can mistakenly choose a phone instead of an apple.
Note that we have not even reached the purchase stage.
I have not “returned” anywhere. To show that the example is relevant, I only need to prove that a brand can be misleading. I already provided a situation where this can happen, which makes the example relevant. I do not have to prove it under the conditions you’ve set. Since your case does not disprove mine, the Apple example remains relevant until you actually refute it.

@Italiya said in #241:

Analogy: choice of arena, participation in a tournament.
I use another analogy: [getting acquainted with the brand on a site, choosing a phone] = [getting acquainted with the history of the arena, participating in a tournament].
An analogy is just an illustration. It proves nothing. So I see no reason why I must accept your analogy instead of mine. I’ve already said I won’t play along to help you prove a false thesis. Let’s agree that I won’t use your analogy, and you won’t use mine. Each sticks to his own. And then let’s move on to "World Series," or better yet, to the second argument.

What you’re doing now is trying to divert the discussion because you have no counter-arguments on the essence. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, that’s more appropriate for the off-topic section, not for feedback.

If this is not off-topic but a constructive debate in pursuit of truth, then explain this:
How exactly does the relevance or irrelevance of the Apple example disprove the other examples or my second argument?

Because the outcome of our Apple debate will not disprove my two arguments nor prove your thesis.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #242:

It means that I can prove its relevance (which I am essentially doing), but it will take me more time than proving the relevance of less debatable examples. And since I only need to prove the relevance of at least one example from the list, not disprove all examples, then from an argumentation standpoint it is quicker and less resource-intensive to focus on less debatable ones.

Especially because we are having a constructive debate in the name of truth (right?) and not just arguing for the sake of it. Which means the main goal is:
To prove or disprove the thesis "Brands, by definition, cannot be misleading."

I’m pointing out that you need to disprove "World Series" first, otherwise discussing Apple is just a waste of time. As long as "World Series" is relevant, the outcome of our debate about Apple does not matter. I’ve already told you: if you just really want to prove me wrong about something, it would be easier to look for grammar mistakes. That would also be unrelated to the core issue, but at least you’d have a better chance there.

Visiting a website to find the address is not always necessary. Directions to “Apple” or “Apple Store” can appear in urban navigation (airports, malls, street signs). In that case, the brand can still mislead someone unfamiliar with it and result in wrong decisions.

If such a store does not exist in the city, that is irrelevant to my example. The situation you describe, where the Apple brand does not mislead, does not disprove my example where the Apple brand can mislead.

"Apple" can also mean a tree. Whether it’s "apple tree" or "apple fruit," the association still points to apples, and someone unfamiliar with the brand may assume the store is related to selling apples. So the issue here is associative meaning that arises when a person sees the word "Apple." We are talking about a brand and misleading. Misleading can occur due to a false associative link, even if the person later receives clarifying information.

Therefore, your case changes nothing. One does not need to study the history of the brand, but additional information is required to avoid the misunderstanding. Misleading can still happen before obtaining that extra information. And this already fits the definition of "misleading," even if the misunderstanding later disappears. The same applies to arenas: misunderstanding can disappear after introduction to the history of tournaments.

I have not “returned” anywhere. To show that the example is relevant, I only need to prove that a brand can be misleading. I already provided a situation where this can happen, which makes the example relevant. I do not have to prove it under the conditions you’ve set. Since your case does not disprove mine, the Apple example remains relevant until you actually refute it.

I use another analogy: [getting acquainted with the brand on a site, choosing a phone] = [getting acquainted with the history of the arena, participating in a tournament].
An analogy is just an illustration. It proves nothing. So I see no reason why I must accept your analogy instead of mine. I’ve already said I won’t play along to help you prove a false thesis. Let’s agree that I won’t use your analogy, and you won’t use mine. Each sticks to his own. And then let’s move on to "World Series," or better yet, to the second argument.

What you’re doing now is trying to divert the discussion because you have no counter-arguments on the essence. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, that’s more appropriate for the off-topic section, not for feedback.

If this is not off-topic but a constructive debate in pursuit of truth, then explain this:
How exactly does the relevance or irrelevance of the Apple example disprove the other examples or my second argument?

Because the outcome of our Apple debate will not disprove my two arguments nor prove your thesis.

Strange logic.
You suggested this example yourself, I chose it because it is the first in the list.
Now you jump down your list and reproach me for considering the wrong example, as if it was I who suggested it to you. Unique!

<"Apple" can also mean a tree. Whether it’s "apple tree" or "apple fruit,">

Absolutely right!
The word apple cannot mislead, since it does not provide any information.
It can be a tree, it can be a picture, etc.

If it had been written at least apples instead of apple, then it would still be possible to say that the person had the right to expect apples.

It’s as if a person was given a link with the name annual bullet arena. What is it about? Is it shooting or what?
He would go to the site to understand it. What should he prepare for and is it interesting at all?

The same is true for the apple. Is it a tree, is it the sale of one apple? Is this a painting of an apple?

Before you go to the address specifically, you need to get an idea of what it is about.

But in both cases, you don't need to study the history of the companies.
All the information is immediately on the surface.

<I use another analogy>

This is not my analogy, but a direct one!
Visited the Apple website = visited the Lichess website.
Choosing a product = choosing an arena.
Buying a product = participating in a tournament.

But in the case of a real brand, everything becomes clear already at the first stage. And in the case of an arena that you present as a brand, even the third stage is not enough.

@Italiya said in #243:

Strange logic.
You suggested this example yourself, I chose it because it is the first in the list.
Now you jump down your list and reproach me for considering the wrong example, as if it was I who suggested it to you. Unique!
What is strange about trying to conduct a constructive discussion more efficiently and not spending more time than necessary? That’s in your own interest as well, since in the end you will also waste a lot of time otherwise. It can be formalized like this:
To prove the relevance of the “Apple” example, you might need, say, 30 steps.
To prove the relevance of the “World Series” example, you might need, say, 5 steps.
Yet proving the validity of either example demonstrates the correctness of the argument where those examples were given.
So what is strange about choosing not to waste time?

As for order — the list has no hierarchy. You asked for examples, I provided them. But if you want to refute my point, it is logical to pick the less controversial ones, so as not to waste extra time.
Unique is when you could reach the goal in 5 steps, but you take 30.

@Italiya said in #243 :

Absolutely right!
The word apple cannot mislead, since it does not provide any information.
It can be a tree, it can be a picture, etc.
In the Oxford dictionary there is no definition of “apple” as “an image of an apple,” so the claim that it can mean “literally anything” is incorrect. The word “Apple” cannot provide no information at all, because it has dictionary definitions. Therefore, by default it carries the information contained in at least one of those definitions.
I am not inventing a meaning for the word “Apple”; I am giving a direct possible dictionary translation. That is, a person seeing “Apple” may think that the store has something to do with selling apples. Misleading includes distorting perception through associations. The word “Apple” out of context evokes a stable association for most people — especially for those unfamiliar with the Apple brand — with apples. Thus, taken out of context, if a person is not familiar with the brand, “Apple” can lead to false conclusions due to a false association, which fits the definition of “misleading.”
So even if it doesn’t say “Apples,” a person may still expect the store to be related to apples, since “Apple” is also associated with apples.

@Italiya said in #243 :

It’s as if a person was given a link with the name annual bullet arena. What is it about? Is it shooting or what?
He would go to the site to understand it. What should he prepare for and is it interesting at all?

The same is true for the apple. Is it a tree, is it the sale of one apple? Is this a painting of an apple?
If there were signs in airports or malls saying “annual bullet arena,” that would also be misleading. Because if no other information is available besides the name, we rely on basic common definitions and associations.

But “annual bullet arena” we mostly encounter on Lichess or in contexts discussing Lichess. Whereas the “Apple” brand we can encounter outside of any context that makes it clear it’s about technology.
Therefore, my example with a person unfamiliar with the brand who saw a sign “Apple” and made a wrong decision due to a false association still holds.

@Italiya said in #243 :

The same is true for the apple. Is it a tree, is it the sale of one apple? Is this a painting of an apple?
It can be anything related to apples, according to the primary definition of “apple.” But “image of an apple” is not included in the dictionary definition, so there is no reason for a person unfamiliar with the Apple brand to associate the word “Apple” with a picture of an apple.

@Italiya said in #243 :

Before you go to the address specifically, you need to get an idea of what it is about.
Not necessarily, if the store is not far or if at the moment you don’t have the ability to learn more about it. That’s why in practice people often rely on associations when deciding whether to visit a particular store.
For example, if there is a sign for “Knife Depot,” a person who wants to look at knives might go there without checking further, assuming that knives are sold there. Notice, it says “Knife,” even though more than one knife is sold. As you see, the plural form is not necessary to trigger the intended association.
Similarly, the name “Apple” can mislead someone unfamiliar with the brand into a false association with apples or fruit as a broader category, and on that basis they may make an incorrect decision. Thus, the “Apple” brand can mislead them.

@Italiya said in #243 :

But in both cases, you don't need to study the history of the companies.
All the information is immediately on the surface.
You don’t need to study history, but you do need to know of the brand itself, since you cannot learn from the word alone that “Apple” has nothing to do with fruit. That information is not universally “on the surface.” And I already gave an example where the brand could mislead a person unfamiliar with it. So far you have not disproved my example.

@Italiya said in #243:

This is not my analogy, but a direct one!
Visited the Apple website = visited the Lichess website.
Choosing a product = choosing an arena.
Buying a product = participating in a tournament.
How does the fact that you gave a “direct” analogy make it not yours? An analogy is still your illustration.
I gave another direct analogy:
Visited the Apple website = Visited the tournament history
Choosing a product = choosing an arena
Buying a product = participating in a tournament

Why should I use your direct analogy instead of mine?

@Italiya said in #243:

But in the case of a real brand, everything becomes clear already at the first stage. And in the case of an arena that you present as a brand, even the third stage is not enough.

1. Your position comes down to saying that there is no misleading if the confusion is quickly dispelled by additional information. But by definition, “mislead” means that the initial impression leads to a false interpretation. Even if the mistake is later corrected, the misleading still occurred.
2. And why do you assume that the definition of a brand excludes the possibility of being misleading? That is simply not the case.
3. “World Series” is misleading and is a real brand.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #244:

What is strange about trying to conduct a constructive discussion more efficiently and not spending more time than necessary? That’s in your own interest as well, since in the end you will also waste a lot of time otherwise. It can be formalized like this:
To prove the relevance of the “Apple” example, you might need, say, 30 steps.
To prove the relevance of the “World Series” example, you might need, say, 5 steps.
Yet proving the validity of either example demonstrates the correctness of the argument where those examples were given.
So what is strange about choosing not to waste time?

As for order — the list has no hierarchy. You asked for examples, I provided them. But if you want to refute my point, it is logical to pick the less controversial ones, so as not to waste extra time.
Unique is when you could reach the goal in 5 steps, but you take 30.

@Italiya said in #243 :

In the Oxford dictionary there is no definition of “apple” as “an image of an apple,” so the claim that it can mean “literally anything” is incorrect. The word “Apple” cannot provide no information at all, because it has dictionary definitions. Therefore, by default it carries the information contained in at least one of those definitions.
I am not inventing a meaning for the word “Apple”; I am giving a direct possible dictionary translation. That is, a person seeing “Apple” may think that the store has something to do with selling apples. Misleading includes distorting perception through associations. The word “Apple” out of context evokes a stable association for most people — especially for those unfamiliar with the Apple brand — with apples. Thus, taken out of context, if a person is not familiar with the brand, “Apple” can lead to false conclusions due to a false association, which fits the definition of “misleading.”
So even if it doesn’t say “Apples,” a person may still expect the store to be related to apples, since “Apple” is also associated with apples.

@Italiya said in #243 :

If there were signs in airports or malls saying “annual bullet arena,” that would also be misleading. Because if no other information is available besides the name, we rely on basic common definitions and associations.

But “annual bullet arena” we mostly encounter on Lichess or in contexts discussing Lichess. Whereas the “Apple” brand we can encounter outside of any context that makes it clear it’s about technology.
Therefore, my example with a person unfamiliar with the brand who saw a sign “Apple” and made a wrong decision due to a false association still holds.

@Italiya said in #243 :

It can be anything related to apples, according to the primary definition of “apple.” But “image of an apple” is not included in the dictionary definition, so there is no reason for a person unfamiliar with the Apple brand to associate the word “Apple” with a picture of an apple.

@Italiya said in #243 :

Not necessarily, if the store is not far or if at the moment you don’t have the ability to learn more about it. That’s why in practice people often rely on associations when deciding whether to visit a particular store.
For example, if there is a sign for “Knife Depot,” a person who wants to look at knives might go there without checking further, assuming that knives are sold there. Notice, it says “Knife,” even though more than one knife is sold. As you see, the plural form is not necessary to trigger the intended association.
Similarly, the name “Apple” can mislead someone unfamiliar with the brand into a false association with apples or fruit as a broader category, and on that basis they may make an incorrect decision. Thus, the “Apple” brand can mislead them.

@Italiya said in #243 :

You don’t need to study history, but you do need to know of the brand itself, since you cannot learn from the word alone that “Apple” has nothing to do with fruit. That information is not universally “on the surface.” And I already gave an example where the brand could mislead a person unfamiliar with it. So far you have not disproved my example.

How does the fact that you gave a “direct” analogy make it not yours? An analogy is still your illustration.
I gave another direct analogy:
Visited the Apple website = Visited the tournament history
Choosing a product = choosing an arena
Buying a product = participating in a tournament

Why should I use your direct analogy instead of mine?

1. Your position comes down to saying that there is no misleading if the confusion is quickly dispelled by additional information. But by definition, “mislead” means that the initial impression leads to a false interpretation. Even if the mistake is later corrected, the misleading still occurred.
2. And why do you assume that the definition of a brand excludes the possibility of being misleading? That is simply not the case.
3. “World Series” is misleading and is a real brand.

If both examples fall under the same definition, then it can't be more complicated. They all meet the same criteria.
And the fact that you feel sorry for wasting time is generally funny to read, not strange.

It is enough that an apple tree can be implied.

If the name of the arena is a brand, then we can find it anywhere like Apple, if not, then only on Lichess.

Knife Depot. The key word is Depot.
At least there is a hint.

You have problems not only with logic - you write that you don't want to spend a lot of time, but in fact that's exactly what you're doing - but also with analogies.
Since Apple and its products also have a history, then visiting the history of Apple = visiting the history of the tournament.

Not additional information, but the main one.
And there is no confusion, because if there is no explanation under the inscription, what is it: selling an apple tree, electronics? Then it could even be the name of a movie.

@Italiya said in #245:

If both examples fall under the same definition, then it can't be more complicated. They all meet the same criteria.
And the fact that you feel sorry for wasting time is generally funny to read, not strange.
The fact that both examples fit the argument does not mean that proving their relevance will require the same amount of reasoning. So I don’t see what is so funny about me not wanting to spend more time than necessary. It is especially strange to hear it from you, because you also have to waste extra time, and the result will still be the same. If in one case you can reach the goal in 5 steps, and in another in 50, why would you choose to take 50?

@Italiya said in #245:

It is enough that an apple tree can be implied.
That is part of the basic definition of the word, so yes, it can be implied. But not “a picture of an apple”, because that meaning is not contained in the definition, and associations with a picture cannot arise from the dictionary meaning.
At the same time, in the case of Apple, it doesn’t matter which dictionary definition a person thinks of — if they are not familiar with the brand, they will still make an incorrect decision. And that falls under the definition of “mislead”.

@Italiya said in #245:

If the name of the arena is a brand, then we can find it anywhere like Apple, if not, then only on Lichess.
That’s not how it works. If a word is a brand, that does not mean we must find an identical example to prove that such a word can be used as a brand. Differences do not make something ineligible. You need to prove that misleading is explicitly forbidden in the very definition of “brand” — even if no other misleading brands existed. The fact that one brand has features not shared by others does not mean that because of this feature it cannot be a brand.

@Italiya said in #245:

Knife Depot. The key word is Depot.
At least there is a hint.
Then in the branded name Apple Store, the word Store also works as a key word or at least as a hint. And just as you don’t need the plural “Knives” to understand that more than one knife is sold, you don’t need the plural “Apples” to associate “Apple” with apples.

@Italiya said in #245:

You have problems not only with logic - you write that you don't want to spend a lot of time, but in fact that's exactly what you're doing - but also with analogies.
You claim I have problems with logic, but you haven’t pointed out or proven a single logical mistake of mine. That makes your statement either demagogical (if intentional) or simply without argumentative weight.
And you distort my words again. Here is my quote: “not spending more time than necessary.” That means I am trying not to spend more time than needed. That’s why I suggest a more efficient way of having this discussion.
You say I am actually doing the opposite — which would mean that I am deliberately trying to waste time. But the fact that I am forced to argue less efficiently because you prefer to take 50 steps instead of 5 does not mean I am not trying to avoid it by suggesting we move to a less controversial example. Since proving the relevance of any single example automatically proves the whole point, this suggestion is logical.
So you made another logical error: you equated my statement “I am trying not to waste extra time” with “I do not waste extra time.” I claimed the first, but never the second.
Don’t you find it ironic that you accuse me of logical errors while you are the one actually making them?

Now, about analogies. Analogies are just illustrations. The fact that you dislike mine does not make it wrong. You are equating one set of elements, I am equating another.

@Italiya said in #245:

Since Apple and its products also have a history, then visiting the history of Apple = visiting the history of the tournament.
That works in your analogy, because you match them based on chronology. I match them based on getting information that clears up the misleading impression.
Since Apple can mislead, just as some arena names can, then:
“Visiting the Apple website and getting clarifying information” = “Visiting the tournament history and getting clarifying information.”

You cannot disprove my analogy simply by offering another analogy. If you want to disprove mine, you have to work within my construction, not your own. I see no reason why I should use your illustration instead of mine. For this reason, your claim that I have problems with analogies is baseless, because your analogies do not invalidate mine.

@Italiya said in #245:

Not additional information, but the main one.
And there is no confusion, because if there is no explanation under the inscription, what is it: selling an apple tree, electronics? Then it could even be the name of a movie.
If a person is not familiar with the brand and sees it for the first time, the first information for them comes from the dictionary meaning and associations. Whether you call it “main” or not does not matter. What matters is the order in which the information is received. Everything that comes after is additional for our reasoning. If after receiving the first information a person makes an incorrect decision, then the brand has misled them.

And where exactly would someone get “electronics” or “movies” from the dictionary definition of apple, if they are unfamiliar with the brand? If there is no extra context, the person can only rely on the dictionary definition and the associations it triggers.
It does not matter which dictionary meaning they pick — whether fruit or tree. Even if they think the store sells apples (fruit) or apple trees (plants), in both cases they will make an incorrect decision because of false associations. In both cases, the brand Apple misleads them according to the definition of “mislead.” That proves the validity of this brand as an example.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #246:

The fact that both examples fit the argument does not mean that proving their relevance will require the same amount of reasoning. So I don’t see what is so funny about me not wanting to spend more time than necessary. It is especially strange to hear it from you, because you also have to waste extra time, and the result will still be the same. If in one case you can reach the goal in 5 steps, and in another in 50, why would you choose to take 50?

That is part of the basic definition of the word, so yes, it can be implied. But not “a picture of an apple”, because that meaning is not contained in the definition, and associations with a picture cannot arise from the dictionary meaning.
At the same time, in the case of Apple, it doesn’t matter which dictionary definition a person thinks of — if they are not familiar with the brand, they will still make an incorrect decision. And that falls under the definition of “mislead”.

That’s not how it works. If a word is a brand, that does not mean we must find an identical example to prove that such a word can be used as a brand. Differences do not make something ineligible. You need to prove that misleading is explicitly forbidden in the very definition of “brand” — even if no other misleading brands existed. The fact that one brand has features not shared by others does not mean that because of this feature it cannot be a brand.

Then in the branded name Apple Store, the word Store also works as a key word or at least as a hint. And just as you don’t need the plural “Knives” to understand that more than one knife is sold, you don’t need the plural “Apples” to associate “Apple” with apples.

You claim I have problems with logic, but you haven’t pointed out or proven a single logical mistake of mine. That makes your statement either demagogical (if intentional) or simply without argumentative weight.
And you distort my words again. Here is my quote: “not spending more time than necessary.” That means I am trying not to spend more time than needed. That’s why I suggest a more efficient way of having this discussion.
You say I am actually doing the opposite — which would mean that I am deliberately trying to waste time. But the fact that I am forced to argue less efficiently because you prefer to take 50 steps instead of 5 does not mean I am not trying to avoid it by suggesting we move to a less controversial example. Since proving the relevance of any single example automatically proves the whole point, this suggestion is logical.
So you made another logical error: you equated my statement “I am trying not to waste extra time” with “I do not waste extra time.” I claimed the first, but never the second.
Don’t you find it ironic that you accuse me of logical errors while you are the one actually making them?

Now, about analogies. Analogies are just illustrations. The fact that you dislike mine does not make it wrong. You are equating one set of elements, I am equating another.

That works in your analogy, because you match them based on chronology. I match them based on getting information that clears up the misleading impression.
Since Apple can mislead, just as some arena names can, then:
“Visiting the Apple website and getting clarifying information” = “Visiting the tournament history and getting clarifying information.”

You cannot disprove my analogy simply by offering another analogy. If you want to disprove mine, you have to work within my construction, not your own. I see no reason why I should use your illustration instead of mine. For this reason, your claim that I have problems with analogies is baseless, because your analogies do not invalidate mine.

If a person is not familiar with the brand and sees it for the first time, the first information for them comes from the dictionary meaning and associations. Whether you call it “main” or not does not matter. What matters is the order in which the information is received. Everything that comes after is additional for our reasoning. If after receiving the first information a person makes an incorrect decision, then the brand has misled them.

And where exactly would someone get “electronics” or “movies” from the dictionary definition of apple, if they are unfamiliar with the brand? If there is no extra context, the person can only rely on the dictionary definition and the associations it triggers.
It does not matter which dictionary meaning they pick — whether fruit or tree. Even if they think the store sells apples (fruit) or apple trees (plants), in both cases they will make an incorrect decision because of false associations. In both cases, the brand Apple misleads them according to the definition of “mislead.” That proves the validity of this brand as an example.

Where is the guarantee that other examples will take less time if they all have the same criteria?

Now you have rounded 30 steps to 50.

You accused me of diverting the discussion because I chose an example of yours that is inconvenient for you (I simply chose the first one that came to mind, not because it tops the list in terms of primary importance, but simply because it is the first), and as an argument you cite the fact that it takes a lot of time, from which it logically follows that you are so sorry to waste extra time that you almost demand to move on to another example, but at the same time you spend a lot of time on correspondence, although nothing forces you to do this and you are not obliged to do this, because you are not even a moderator.
I did not complain about the time.
If you do not mind wasting time, then your accusations that I am diverting the discussion are unfounded and are manipulation.
If you had said: "maybe we should choose another example?"
But you did accuse.

Unlike Apple, knives cannot have tree , so this is a more informative inscription.

Moreover, as far as I understand, you cannot use a word that indicates a product category.
For example: you cannot call a brand "sausage" if the company sells sausage.

If this is so, then the Apple brand cannot sell apples.

You do not need to study history to buy from the Apple website, just as you do not need to study history to participate in a tournament.
No clarifying information is required!
Therefore, "my" analogy is the only correct one.
Your interpretation is wrong, because there is a direct analogy here.

"Visiting the Apple website and getting additional information" is an attempt to manipulate what was said earlier: visited the Apple website = visited the history of the tournament.

As soon as you visit the Apple website, you no longer need additional information or the history of the brand to understand what products are offered.

Now you have a second "direct analogy".

That's why you have problems with the concept of what logic and analogy are. You try to manipulatively change the wording, but the essence will not change anyway.

<even if no other misleading brands exist. The fact that one brand has features not shared by others does not mean that because of this feature it cannot be a brand.>

This fact proves that this is just the name of one of the tournaments.

If there are no examples of the tournament name being used anywhere separately from Lichess, if, unlike brands, it is misleading, then what proves that it is a brand?

@Italiya said in #247:

Where is the guarantee that other examples will take less time if they all have the same criteria?
There is no guarantee; there is a reasonable assumption, since when seeing “World Series” a person may think that all countries of the world participate (or at least the vast majority), while in fact only two countries do. This misleads the person when they see the branded name — they set aside time to watch something that sounds grand and global, but then get disappointed because the actual scale does not match.

The fact that all the examples work as illustrations does not mean that the same line of reasoning is used to justify the relevance of each of them.

@Italiya said in #247:

Now you have rounded 30 steps to 50.
Hahaha. That’s funny. Are you serious? Even pointing out spelling mistakes in my posts to “catch” me would be more relevant. Here the numbers 30, 50, or 100 do not matter at all. I could replace 50 with 500 right now, because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one. I chose 50 because I liked it more, but I could just as well write 100. Instead of 5 steps you take 100. Does that change the point? No. You are still taking the longer road instead of the shorter one.

@Italiya said in #247:

You accused me of diverting the discussion because I chose an example of yours that is inconvenient for you (I simply chose the first one that came to mind, not because it tops the list in terms of primary importance, but simply because it is the first)
I pointed out that you were derailing the discussion because you kept focusing on Apple, even though I suggested switching to a less controversial example in order to save time. The list I provided has no hierarchy, so we can take any example in any order. Since proving the validity of just one example is enough, it makes sense to choose the least debatable one to avoid wasting time. That’s exactly what I proposed. I didn’t “accuse” you of picking the first example; I suggested switching to another one so that the discussion would not go off track.

@Italiya said in #247:

and as an argument you cite the fact that it takes a lot of time, from which it logically follows that you are so sorry to waste extra time that you almost demand to move on to another example, but at the same time you spend a lot of time on correspondence, although nothing forces you to do this and you are not obliged to do this, because you are not even a moderator.
First, what I said is that I try to avoid wasting more time than necessary in a discussion. It doesn’t always work, but it is the goal. If you don’t want to follow a logical and efficient path, then I simply adapt and continue as constructively as possible.
Second, the fact that I try to save time does not mean I have a problem with this conversation itself — otherwise I wouldn’t be here.
Third, to have a constructive discussion in this section of the forum and to show that “brand” does not exclude misleading names, I don’t need to be a moderator.

@Italiya said in #247:

I did not complain about the time.
I never claimed you did. What I said is that you also end up wasting more time than needed, when you could avoid it. The outcome is the same, but the path is longer for both of us.

@Italiya said in #247:

If you do not mind wasting time, then your accusations that I am diverting the discussion are unfounded and are manipulation.
You don’t see that your statements have no connection? It’s like saying:
“If you don’t mind petting a cat, then your accusations of deforestation are unfounded and manipulative.”
Whether I mind spending extra time or not has no bearing on whether you are derailing the discussion by refusing to focus on a less controversial example or the second argument. These are independent issues.

Your original thesis that you want to prove was:
“Brands, by definition, cannot be misleading.”
Now you are only stuck on Apple, ignoring the original thesis. That’s why your accusation of manipulation is demagogy—it relies on a logical fallacy and has no constructive basis.

@Italiya said in #247:

If you had said: "maybe we should choose another example?"
But you did accuse.
I literally said at the very beginning: if you find the Apple example controversial, we can choose another one. After reviewing the list again, I suggested World Series as the least controversial one, to save both of us time. If you are interested in a constructive debate, that’s the logical choice. If not, then it’s unclear why you posted this in the Feedback section instead of Off-Topic.

If your strategy is to “wear me down” by dragging the debate off track, hoping I’ll quit due to time or energy, that won’t work. I’ll just keep pointing out your inefficiency and bringing the discussion back to a constructive path, no matter how many times it takes.

@Italiya said in #247:

Unlike Apple, knives cannot have tree , so this is a more informative inscription.
So how does the presence of a second meaning cancel out the uselessness of an explicit plural due to the “hint” in the second word?
Whether someone interprets Apple as “fruit” or “tree,” the logic still works:
The word Store already works as a clarifier. Just as you don’t need “Knives” in plural to know more than one knife is sold, you don’t need “Apples” to associate “Apple” with apples or apple trees.

@Italiya said in #247:

Moreover, as far as I understand, you cannot use a word that indicates a product category.
For example: you cannot call a brand "sausage" if the company sells sausage.
If this is so, then the Apple brand cannot sell apples.
You are confusing trademark registration with marketing usage. You cannot trademark “Sausage” for selling sausages, but you can name a shop “Sausage.” The difference is that if a competitor opens the same shop, you can’t sue them. And yes, sometimes even generic words can be trademarked if certain conditions are met.

But more importantly, whether it is legally registrable is irrelevant. The point is that a person unfamiliar with the brand can still be misled when encountering the name.

@Italiya said in #247:

You do not need to study history to buy from the Apple website, just as you do not need to study history to participate in a tournament.
No clarifying information is required! > Therefore, "my" analogy is the only correct one.
Your interpretation is wrong, because there is a direct analogy here.
But you do need to know about the Apple brand in order not to be misled and make a wrong decision when you encounter this brand out of context. Just as you need to check the website to learn that the Apple brand is connected with technology and thereby remove the confusion, so too you need to look into the history of tournaments in order for the confusion to disappear.

Your analogy is not the only valid one, since it does not disprove mine. Simply declaring your analogy to be the only correct one does not make it so—there are no tablets of stone stating that your opinion is the ultimate truth. On what grounds do you assume you can equate only what is convenient to you? I can just as well say that your analogy is wrong, because there exists a more direct analogy—my analogy, which equates things on the basis of obtaining additional information.

And then what? I will say that my analogy is correct, you will say that yours is correct. But in reality, an analogy is not proof—it is an illustration. And I see no reason why I should abandon my analogy in favor of yours simply because you label your analogy the only correct one. Since when is the question of what is right or wrong determined solely by your opinion?”

@Italiya said in #247:

"Visiting the Apple website and getting additional information" is an attempt to manipulate what was said earlier: visited the Apple website = visited the history of the tournament.
Where’s the manipulation? You just label as “manipulation” any analogy you cannot refute. I didn’t distort your words, I offered an alternative analogy. You equate “visiting Apple’s website” with “visiting tournament history.” I equate “getting clarifying information on the Apple website” with “getting clarifying information from tournament history.” Why should only your equivalence be allowed?

@Italiya said in #247:

As soon as you visit the Apple website, you no longer need additional information or the history of the brand to understand what products are offered.
You see, you’ve now acknowledged that visiting the website is necessary in order to familiarize yourself with the brand. Accordingly, if you encounter the brand and don’t check it on the website, it can mislead you. As a result, you might make an incorrect decision (for example, visit a store you wouldn’t have visited if you had been familiar with the brand). Therefore, ‘Apple’ is a valid example of a brand that can be misleading.

@Italiya said in #247:

Now you have a second "direct analogy".
Well, that’s your analogy. I’m using a different one because I’m equating different conceptual units. So both your analogy and mine are equally ‘direct’—we’re simply mapping different informational components.

@Italiya said in #247:

That's why you have problems with the concept of what logic and analogy are. You try to manipulatively change the wording, but the essence will not change anyway.
To claim sufficient competence to evaluate someone’s formal logic, you should at least have read a textbook on the subject. Given the large number of logical errors in your messages and your misunderstanding of basic concepts explained in the very first chapters of such textbooks, I strongly doubt you’ve read even one. For the same reason, you don’t understand what an analogy is within logic and argumentation, yet you still try to point out alleged problems with it. I’m not even sure you understand what “logic” is, considering that you get confused by simpler notions.

The point is this: you cannot show that my analogies are false (which is almost impossible anyway, since they are illustrations, not proofs), nor can you identify and substantiate logical errors in my reasoning — so you simply label as “manipulation” whatever you can’t refute. That amounts to demagoguery (if done deliberately, rather than out of ignorance of logic), namely an assertion without evidence. I’ve already said this and I’ll repeat it: demagoguery won’t work on me. If you accuse me of manipulation, you’re obliged to prove that claim; without evidence it’s a bare assertion and therefore demagoguery (if intentional).

@Italiya said in #247:

This fact proves that this is just the name of one of the tournaments.

If there are no examples of the tournament name being used anywhere separately from Lichess, if, unlike brands, it is misleading, then what proves that it is a brand?
No, the fact that official tournament names are branded does not require that they be used outside of Lichess or that they be free of misleading elements. They only need to meet the definition of “brand.” And they do. Therefore, they are branded.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #249:

There is no guarantee; there is a reasonable assumption, since when seeing “World Series” a person may think that all countries of the world participate (or at least the vast majority), while in fact only two countries do. This misleads the person when they see the branded name — they set aside time to watch something that sounds grand and global, but then get disappointed because the actual scale does not match.

The fact that all the examples work as illustrations does not mean that the same line of reasoning is used to justify the relevance of each of them.

Hahaha. That’s funny. Are you serious? Even pointing out spelling mistakes in my posts to “catch” me would be more relevant. Here the numbers 30, 50, or 100 do not matter at all. I could replace 50 with 500 right now, because it’s hyperbole used only to illustrate that instead of choosing the shorter path, you insist on the longer one. I chose 50 because I liked it more, but I could just as well write 100. Instead of 5 steps you take 100. Does that change the point? No. You are still taking the longer road instead of the shorter one.

I pointed out that you were derailing the discussion because you kept focusing on Apple, even though I suggested switching to a less controversial example in order to save time. The list I provided has no hierarchy, so we can take any example in any order. Since proving the validity of just one example is enough, it makes sense to choose the least debatable one to avoid wasting time. That’s exactly what I proposed. I didn’t “accuse” you of picking the first example; I suggested switching to another one so that the discussion would not go off track.

First, what I said is that I try to avoid wasting more time than necessary in a discussion. It doesn’t always work, but it is the goal. If you don’t want to follow a logical and efficient path, then I simply adapt and continue as constructively as possible.
Second, the fact that I try to save time does not mean I have a problem with this conversation itself — otherwise I wouldn’t be here.
Third, to have a constructive discussion in this section of the forum and to show that “brand” does not exclude misleading names, I don’t need to be a moderator.

I never claimed you did. What I said is that you also end up wasting more time than needed, when you could avoid it. The outcome is the same, but the path is longer for both of us.

You don’t see that your statements have no connection? It’s like saying:
“If you don’t mind petting a cat, then your accusations of deforestation are unfounded and manipulative.”
Whether I mind spending extra time or not has no bearing on whether you are derailing the discussion by refusing to focus on a less controversial example or the second argument. These are independent issues.

Your original thesis that you want to prove was:
“Brands, by definition, cannot be misleading.”
Now you are only stuck on Apple, ignoring the original thesis. That’s why your accusation of manipulation is demagogy—it relies on a logical fallacy and has no constructive basis.

I literally said at the very beginning: if you find the Apple example controversial, we can choose another one. After reviewing the list again, I suggested World Series as the least controversial one, to save both of us time. If you are interested in a constructive debate, that’s the logical choice. If not, then it’s unclear why you posted this in the Feedback section instead of Off-Topic.

If your strategy is to “wear me down” by dragging the debate off track, hoping I’ll quit due to time or energy, that won’t work. I’ll just keep pointing out your inefficiency and bringing the discussion back to a constructive path, no matter how many times it takes.

So how does the presence of a second meaning cancel out the uselessness of an explicit plural due to the “hint” in the second word?
Whether someone interprets Apple as “fruit” or “tree,” the logic still works:
The word Store already works as a clarifier. Just as you don’t need “Knives” in plural to know more than one knife is sold, you don’t need “Apples” to associate “Apple” with apples or apple trees.

You are confusing trademark registration with marketing usage. You cannot trademark “Sausage” for selling sausages, but you can name a shop “Sausage.” The difference is that if a competitor opens the same shop, you can’t sue them. And yes, sometimes even generic words can be trademarked if certain conditions are met.

But more importantly, whether it is legally registrable is irrelevant. The point is that a person unfamiliar with the brand can still be misled when encountering the name.

But you do need to know about the Apple brand in order not to be misled and make a wrong decision when you encounter this brand out of context. Just as you need to check the website to learn that the Apple brand is connected with technology and thereby remove the confusion, so too you need to look into the history of tournaments in order for the confusion to disappear.

Your analogy is not the only valid one, since it does not disprove mine. Simply declaring your analogy to be the only correct one does not make it so—there are no tablets of stone stating that your opinion is the ultimate truth. On what grounds do you assume you can equate only what is convenient to you? I can just as well say that your analogy is wrong, because there exists a more direct analogy—my analogy, which equates things on the basis of obtaining additional information.

And then what? I will say that my analogy is correct, you will say that yours is correct. But in reality, an analogy is not proof—it is an illustration. And I see no reason why I should abandon my analogy in favor of yours simply because you label your analogy the only correct one. Since when is the question of what is right or wrong determined solely by your opinion?”

Where’s the manipulation? You just label as “manipulation” any analogy you cannot refute. I didn’t distort your words, I offered an alternative analogy. You equate “visiting Apple’s website” with “visiting tournament history.” I equate “getting clarifying information on the Apple website” with “getting clarifying information from tournament history.” Why should only your equivalence be allowed?

You see, you’ve now acknowledged that visiting the website is necessary in order to familiarize yourself with the brand. Accordingly, if you encounter the brand and don’t check it on the website, it can mislead you. As a result, you might make an incorrect decision (for example, visit a store you wouldn’t have visited if you had been familiar with the brand). Therefore, ‘Apple’ is a valid example of a brand that can be misleading.

Well, that’s your analogy. I’m using a different one because I’m equating different conceptual units. So both your analogy and mine are equally ‘direct’—we’re simply mapping different informational components.

To claim sufficient competence to evaluate someone’s formal logic, you should at least have read a textbook on the subject. Given the large number of logical errors in your messages and your misunderstanding of basic concepts explained in the very first chapters of such textbooks, I strongly doubt you’ve read even one. For the same reason, you don’t understand what an analogy is within logic and argumentation, yet you still try to point out alleged problems with it. I’m not even sure you understand what “logic” is, considering that you get confused by simpler notions.

The point is this: you cannot show that my analogies are false (which is almost impossible anyway, since they are illustrations, not proofs), nor can you identify and substantiate logical errors in my reasoning — so you simply label as “manipulation” whatever you can’t refute. That amounts to demagoguery (if done deliberately, rather than out of ignorance of logic), namely an assertion without evidence. I’ve already said this and I’ll repeat it: demagoguery won’t work on me. If you accuse me of manipulation, you’re obliged to prove that claim; without evidence it’s a bare assertion and therefore demagoguery (if intentional).

No, the fact that official tournament names are branded does not require that they be used outside of Lichess or that they be free of misleading elements. They only need to meet the definition of “brand.” And they do. Therefore, they are branded.

In that case, I choose the 5/4 ratio
I like it better, do you mind?

<What you’re doing now is trying to divert the discussion because you have no counter-arguments on the essence. If you want to argue just for the sake of arguing, that’s more appropriate for the off-topic section, not for feedback.>

A direct accusation.
According to your statement, I can be complained about for off-topic.

You repeated this several times.
Later, you write that you don’t mind wasting your time, but it just takes longer, but this example is suitable for analysis.

Despite the fact that you yourself say that there is no guarantee that other examples can be analyzed faster. This is only your assumption.

That is, you yourself offered a list of examples, nowhere indicated what can be chosen and what cannot, then began to accuse me of leading the discussion astray, right down to off-topic.
You started with accusations, now you've softened your rhetoric.

Now you're ready to adapt.

The funniest thing is that you intentionally directly suggested to me several times to go off-topic:

<I've already told you: if you just really want to prove me wrong about something, it would be easier to look for grammar mistakes. That would also be unrelated to the core issue, but at least you'd have a better chance there.>

It's impossible to comment on this in my right mind, but on this occasion I can quote.
After all, it's so logical to say that you're looking for a shorter path, but at the same time you're ready to lengthen it with an outright off-topic.

You also wrote that you're not interested in having a dialogue in terms of "I like it/I don't like it."

So now you yourself are saying that you don't want to analyze it using Apple as an example, because you don't like it.
After all, you consider it relevant and are not even sure that others will take less time.

I do not confuse it with a trademark, this applies to a brand first and foremost, since a brand should evoke an association with uniqueness, and not with a category.

It is not about the plural, but about the fact that an apple can be a tree, but a knife cannot.

An analogy is a direct comparison.
How is the need to go to a website equated to studying history?

You are trying to equate a sign without additional information with directly going to a website or physically to a store.
We are surrounded by names that do not understand what is meant - a store, a film or an amusement park.
If you had to align yourself with aliens from another planet, then detailed information would be written under each sign, but the focus is on modern society.
"Little Shop of Horrors" and the like does not mean that this is a store at all.
You wrote that if a person is nearby, he can come in. That is, you understand that a person will not go somewhere specially without knowing for sure.
So if a person comes in out of curiosity on the way, this will not be considered misleading.

However, the point is that in the store itself, be it physical or online, it can no longer be the case that there is a phone with a description of the apple on the display.

Not the history of the brand, but the name and description.
Everything is clear at the selection stage.
This is the main difference, that at this stage, Arena Lichess is misleading.

I can also return to the translation.
Firstly, not the translation, but the choice of language provided by the site - this is a huge difference.
Secondly, you wrote that then I will have to come to the conclusion that the Chinese or Germans are deliberately misled, unlike the English, which will be absurd.
What do you mean "I'll have to come to a conclusion?" You never know what might be absurd to you personally. In fact, it won't be like that?