Edit: Seems like the Mod-Logs are public, so it’s not ‚secretly‘. My preferred mobile app doesn’t show this and for me the post just disappeared from my history.

Anyway, the breach of rule I allegedly did is obviously an excuse to block inconvenient opinions as it’s not at all related.

There is no censorship in Ba Sing Se
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (10 children)

I will gladly do so

Argument analysis:

Explicit Premise:

I've been hearing "you can't be a leftist if you're not against NATO" since Geocities was a thing.

Unstated major premise (laughably false):

There do not exist legitimate critiques against the NATO bloc

Conclusion:

[therefore] Marxist-Leninist groups have been captured by Russian and Chinese state interests for decades.

My response:

Parent commenter absurdly acts as if there is no other explanation, which is ludicrous. Parent comment likely commits "falacy of the missing middle" with the missing premise also being the most obviously false one. The great thing about a reducio is how it cuts through all that noise

Hope this helps

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (9 children)

    The missing part of this is how you decided that the "unstated" "premise" is a premise at all.

    You didn't show how it follows logically from the op's statement so you failed. How predictable, all this popcorn was for nothing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (8 children)

    Ok Captain Logic, show us your deconstruction of the argument and how it's logically sound since you didn't engage with mine at all

    I'm especially interested in how you believe the argument should move from the single premise to the very distant conclusion without a missing premise

    I predict that instead of actually analyzing the argument formally you will "Nuh-uh!", then declare victory like you have done multiple previous times in this thread

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 hours ago (7 children)

    I engaged with yours sufficiently to establish it's bollocks, which is enough for me. See ya!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (5 children)

    Given you added your "prediction" at the same time as I made reply it's not much of a prediction. But yeah no, I'm not here to defend the original argument, I'm here to debunk morons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (4 children)

    Debunking is when you don't even understand the concept of a missing major premise and then act superior apparently

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (3 children)

    Failing logic is when you describe "missing premise" as "reductio ad absurdum".

    Failing languages is when you interpret a light-hearted comment as a logic exercise.

    Both at the same time is... special!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

    Continuing with the supreme confidence of the ignorant

    Reducio was my counter move, the missing major premise is one of the possible diagnoses of informal fallacy that would apply to the original comment

    Being a pompous prat is picking a logic fight, misusing and misunderstanding the terminology, then pretending that you were aloof the whole time

    It's pretty obvious that you lack the fundamental capability to break down an argument in formal terms, but you chose to use sophistries and sockpuppet votes instead of just frankly admitting your ignorance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments