• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -17 months ago

    Yeah but what about the CIA, right? Those are an example of terrorists, right? But yeah what about Hillary Clinton’s Emails? But what about the cost of recycling solar? What about it, right? What about those, you got an answer for those?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -17 months ago

      Exactly. And saying “what about” isn’t always a fallacy. That’s like thinking anyone says a natural fact they’re committing a naturalistic fallacy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -27 months ago

          Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.

          The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other “terrorist” organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don’t see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              Oh wow, I didn’t get it until this message, fuck I’m an idiot. All comparisons are always fallacious. Thanks for helping me out, friend.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                0
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                But what about Jeffrey Epstein? Jeffrey Epstein ran a terrorist organization and this cult ran a terrorist organization and therefor Jeffrey Epstein is involved in the MOVE cult. And the CIA. /sarcasm

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -17 months ago

                  Yeah, that was my point. I can’t believe I didn’t see what my own point was until you cleared it up for me. It wasn’t about how “terrorist was a loaded word” even though that’s what I said.

                  I’m glad you’re here to clear up the difference between what I said and what I meant, otherwise I’d be genuinely lost.

                  Keep it coming.