Viking_Hippie @ Viking_Hippie @lemmy.world

Posts

131

Comments

9,302

Joined

2 yr. ago

True, but on the minus side, dumb people actively seeking out the infected milk would artificially increase the instances and thus the spread.

Billionaires and hectomillionaire shareholders are pretty much the same thing when it comes to enshittification.

It might not be racist from the top down like the husk formerly known as Twitter is now, but it'll enshittify and be racist from the bottom up nonetheless.

I've got some.. Nope! Not gonna finish that sentence! 😄

I wonder whether @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world knew and based his name on it or it's just a coincidence 🤔

BlueSky might not be racist YET, but it will be when all of the establishment media migrate there and the dumb masses follow.

Besides, it'll be enshittificated sooner or later like all corporations with shareholders.

I know, just teasing you about the ambiguous way you phrased it 😁

You can be both. I know I am.

I don't think they accept donations in the form of ideas about Elon Musk..

I want him convicted in a court of law. Legitimately.

And I want a pet pig that flies. There's nothing legitimate about how the US courts treat the rich and powerful.

Even the ones that get convicted tend to go to cushy Club Fed prison resorts unless they mess with the money of other rich and powerful people like Bernie Madoff did.

That's an interesting username.. Are you Jake from a farm or are you a farm that grows Jake?

Cheap IKEA rugs are actually named after Danish places.

They are? Examples, please! I wanna know if it's any of the places here that deserve it! 😁

"Skittles mini garbage house kit"

Implying that M&Ms are garbage Skittles, I guess? 🤷

It sounds like a Victorian gentleman being coy about a genital wart:

"I shan't be going out this eve, old chap. I'm afraid I've got an estus on my pirkle."

If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horses Do?

I hear that one guy died..

reverend Estus T. Pirkle. Why? I have no idea. He's not especially charismatic and he sounds like an idiot.

Hell, even his NAME is goddamn atrocious to the point that it's impossible to take him seriously 😂

Don't you mean CUMsplayers?

Ok, that's it. The stupidest thing I've written all year and still clicked post. There was stiff competition, pun intended, but this is the winner.

US finds that Israel is not impeding assistance to Gaza; aid groups disagree objective reality vehemently disagrees

Fixed it. This is literally Trump level gaslighting idiocy.

The poster way up the stack did not clarify at all. They posted "reducto ad absurdum" as if that was the end of it.

Perhaps they were using that as a shorthand for "reducto ad absurdum fallacy" and, not unreasonably, expecting that people would infer ad much from context.

Either way, we have discussed this to death and you're still beating the horse, if you will forgive the purposefully mixed metaphor.

Even if you won't, it's too late now, so we all must find a way to cope. Have a good day.

Reducto ad absurdum fallacy = reducto ad absurdum used fallaciously. That's all.

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.

So that's where you want the goal posts now?

I specifically agreed that reducto ad absurdum isn't inherently a fallacy in the first sentence of my first reply to you.

And that's my whole point

It is now that your original point that "there's no such thing as a reducto ad absurdum fallacy" has been shot to pieces 🙄

People use the term in a muddy way that takes away from a tool.

That's the case with almost every tool of every kind that people have access to.

Especially in the case of language, people are constantly using it wrong, and while I genuinely applaud your intention of projecting a useful tool from being dulled by misuse, the battle is an uphill one to begin with.

Don't make it even worse by misstating your position and then defending that mistake like it's the Korean border.

If they're guilty of hyperbole or slippery slope, then say that

I JUST told you about how hyperbole and slippery slope arguments aren't inherently fallacious. Just like reducto ad absurdum arguments, they're fallacies when used fallaciously and otherwise NOT fallacies.

Is that clear enough, or do you want me to Ask Figaro?