brain_in_a_box @ brain_in_a_box @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

1,432

Joined

2 yr. ago

it is. since you seem opposed to learning anywhere but Lemmy, I’ll help you out. equivocation is an informal fallacy where you use one word in a certain context with a particular meaning, and then you use the same word in a different context with a different meaning, and then you claim that they’re the same thing.

Yeah ok, totally not a debate bro

If that's how you want to do it, I'm happy to come to your level and just copy paste the Wikipedia definition of proof by assertion and fallacy fallacy while dropping smug lines like "I'll help you out"

You can't tell me what to do, tankie

Just as yours doesn't change that you're being a debate bro

You also don't win by answering questions I didn't ask.

That's peak debate bro shit

Exactly like how I can confidently predict your perfect spontaneous anarchist revolution won't happen to tomorrow, no matter how much you insist that "it could"

That wasn't the question

Communism always has terrible outcomes

Every communist country except for Cambodia saw massive, rapid, improvements in quality of living, to an unprecedented degree. Life expectancy in both China and the USSR more than doubled in only a few decades.

Then drop the debate bro shit

And yet there they are, predicting the future anyway. That must be very upsetting for you.

So you support the Russian and Chinese revolutions?

But the admins on world haven’t been summarily banning people for “tanky shit” like the ML admins have been banning for “liberal shit”.

What are you talking about? .ml admins are infinitely more tolerant of liberalism that .world are of leftism.

it is. since you seem opposed to learning anywhere but Lemmy, I’ll help you out. equivocation is an informal fallacy where you use one word in a certain context with a particular meaning, and then you use the same word in a different context with a different meaning, and then you claim that they’re the same thing.

Oh my God, go back to Reddit you insufferable debate bro.

Are you suggesting that meteorologists can predict the future?

All of that is besides the point; the point is that none of these revolutions produced the kind of perfect anarchist society you want, and you would oppose them.

What’s interesting to me is that the end goals are nearly the same, which is to implement an authoritarian state where there is a powerful insular ingroup that can exploit the masses to their benefit.

Unlike centrist liberals, who want to create a non hierarchical, stateless society with no exploitation or in groups...

it’s an informal fallacy you might want to look up.

Oh my god, I did not consent to be exposed to this level of Reddit cringe either.

And also no, it's not equivocation.

Meteorologists must enrage you; "how dare you think you can predict the future!"

If you have zero reading comprehension, I suppose. Literacy is authoritarian after all.

I didn't consent to you having that authority, tankie.