You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 3.12K Posts
- 78K Comments
- Modlog
You seem to have made what’s known as a converse error in your logic:
The person you replied to said that
You seem to have mistakingly confused that with the false claim
And as such you have responded to a statement the commenter never made.
And equivalent mistake would be claim that since every time it rains it is cloudy, therefore whenever it is cloudy it is always raining. Honestly logical errors happen for everyone, I hope this helps.
Did they? Did you just make a reverse strawman fallacy?
Personally I think the comment could’ve been worded better as it can be interpreted either as
(I.E. Fascists use the excuse, provably correct and can be generalised to authoritarianism in general) However I do see that it could potentially be taken the other way as
(I.E only those who used the excuse are fascists, completely false) I used the principle of charity and assumed the inital argument was logical, though its understandable if others aren’t willing to do that