Siderea, Sibylla Bostoniensis on Nostr: npub1trdnq…gussx This is an extraordinary poorly formed argument, in several ways. ...
npub1trdnqrfstufc45awha43p6xy2n0v6czuhapzh4r09hap08dg0c6s9gussx (npub1trd…ussx)
This is an extraordinary poorly formed argument, in several ways. Most obviously, it's a naked logical fallacy to propose that because term can be willfully misused, all uses of a term are willful misuses, e.g. the fact that the term "domestic terrorism" can be misapplied to peaceful or even violent but not terrorist organizations does not mean that there is no such thing as domestic terrorism and that use of the term is somehow disqualifying of a contention.
But less obviously, npub1zr7gh8ksl8esk50g9fsvsrwmj63qka30ev5vhy5a254zlj4mrpxsqpekna (npub1zr7…ekna) made a specific allegation. Retorting with generalities does not address that allegation, except perhaps by vague insinuation. If you think they're wrong about Musk, present your argument if you have one, or fuck off. Saying "No such accusation should be taken at face value" to the person who is making the accusation is not engaging with it, it's trying to insult by inference from a platitude.
This is an extraordinary poorly formed argument, in several ways. Most obviously, it's a naked logical fallacy to propose that because term can be willfully misused, all uses of a term are willful misuses, e.g. the fact that the term "domestic terrorism" can be misapplied to peaceful or even violent but not terrorist organizations does not mean that there is no such thing as domestic terrorism and that use of the term is somehow disqualifying of a contention.
But less obviously, npub1zr7gh8ksl8esk50g9fsvsrwmj63qka30ev5vhy5a254zlj4mrpxsqpekna (npub1zr7…ekna) made a specific allegation. Retorting with generalities does not address that allegation, except perhaps by vague insinuation. If you think they're wrong about Musk, present your argument if you have one, or fuck off. Saying "No such accusation should be taken at face value" to the person who is making the accusation is not engaging with it, it's trying to insult by inference from a platitude.