Political humor

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Tramort@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

the logic is simple, but you are ignoring it.

you are providing examples where language is consistent with an algebraic formulation, and ignoring examples where it clearly is not.

if examples of both exist, then you plainly cannot treat language like algebra, because it's not always correct.

you only need one counter-example to disprove a thesis. instead of discussing the counter examples provided, you think that providing more examples of consistency contributed to the conversation.

sorry, but they don't. that's not how logic works.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago

The annoying thing is, you can treat it like boolean logic, they just aren't correct when they try to do so.

parent

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

I have made it clear, and it is not me who is ignoring it.

If you are neutral about pineapple on pizza, then there is no outcome. Maybe you personally dislike pineapple on pizza, and decide for yourself. Maybe you like pineapple on pizza and decide for yourself. But those are not the scenarios we are talking about, and you know it.

Let’s lean into a neutral absurdity to illustrate.

We are talking about a movement that declares “all pizzas must only have pineapple and those that disobey will face prison, torture, and death.” We will call them Pineapplists.

Anti-Pineapplists oppose this movement of forcing pizza to be pineapple-exclusive. So an anti-anti-pineapplist opposes opposition to the pineapplist movement, which is a form of active support for pineapplists forcing their will upon others. This is not a neutral stance because they are assisting pineapplists in quashing dissent.

But let’s assume someone was neutral about pineapplism. In this case they would not take a stance of pro-pineapplist, anti-pineapplist, or anti-anti-pineapplist. Maybe they don’t even like pizza. They stay out of it. That remains neutral as long as the situation remains in stalemate. But let’s say the pineapplists gain power and are facing opposition from anti-pineapplists. Emboldened, pineapplists have doubled down and everyone is very close to being forced to eat pineapple pizza and nothing else. Anti-pineapplists are resisting. In this case, remaining neutral still has an impact and means that whatever the outcome, you are fine with it. In that way you have also made a choice. In situations like that, where force and coercion are involved, there is nothing neutral about neutrality, and taking a stance against an opposition is also not neutral.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago*

Aren't metaphors and such meant to make things clearer/easier to understand? This is so much more difficult to process.

But basically I believe you have chosen 1 specific example and claimed that prooves your point. This is not how proofs work. 1 counter example however is sufficient to disproove, and 1 has been given. Tbh I suspect your given example has some logical fallacy in it somewhere too, but you're either incapable or unwilling to engage with a logical argument so it's not worth my time to figure out where it is.

Edit: nvm found it immediately. Just because the anti-anti-pineapplist engages in an action that results in support for pineapplists does not mean that they are pro-pineapplist. I'm sure you show active support for billionaires by having a job or buying practically anything, that doesn't immediately make you pro-billionaire.

parent

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

Let me try again because you haven't gotten it yet. Pro-swimming means he actively wants people to swim. If you are just against stopping people from swimming, that doesn't mean you want to force everyone to swim.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[+] djdkfifjj@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

[removed by mod]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

I mean there isn't, but also if you want to show other people are wrong (the racists) then you need to know what being wrong is and how to show that. This person doesn't know and so would be detrimental in an actual debate as their points could be disproven and the racists would then believe themselves right. You have to make your arguments unasailable because the other side only want to prove you wrong, they don't think they have to prove themselves right.

parent

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Being pro-abortion does not mean someone wants everyone to have an abortion.

Being pro-LGBTQ+ does not mean someone wants everyone to be queer.

Being pro-legalization does not mean someone wants everyone to do recreational drugs.

It means a person believes those things should be permissible.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

Literally the movement is pro-choice not pro-abortion.

Pro-legalisation obviously doesn't mean that, it means you want it legalised, how is this relevant? Also pro-legalisation doesn't mean it wants legalisation to be permissible, it already is.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Darn, I have been sucked into a debate with a bad faith troll. That is definitely on me.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago

Genuinely not my intention, what did I do in bad faith?