Starting off with a false dichotomy, conflating that no one else is trying so you’re their only hope.
Makes me want to sit down watch it and pick out any falacies, but let’s be honest, that’s not likely to happen.
Tell me you don’t understand fallacies without telling me you don’t understand fallacies I guess.
Doesn’t matter, the false dichotomy is our way is the right way because no one else is trying.
It’s a fallacy about creating a binary where there isn’t one. Anyone else can start up another initiative. He’s not the only option just because he’s the only one currently trying.
The fact that he has momentum does objectively make supporting his cause your best chance of seeing that goal come to fruition, until/unless there’s a fatal flaw.
Trying to fragment that support into multiple efforts just confuses shit and decreases the chances of success.
Well your first statement is a subtle strawman. Ross said this way is the only way, because no one else is trying, not that it was the right way.
Secondly, fallacy fallacy, just because it’s a false dichotomy doesn’t mean it’s not also correct. Can anyone just start up another initiative now? Not technically, but practically. Or would any serious attempt just join this movement to add to the momentum. Then if this fails, when can another attempt be made, how long till the ‘political will’ burnt by this campaign is regenerated?
We are the only ones currently trying to do this, who have gained this much momentum and a serious chance of accomplishing it.
Is how I understand Ross wanted his message to be interpreted.
Starting off with a false dichotomy, conflating that no one else is trying so you’re their only hope.
It might be incorrect, but I genuinely don’t know of any other project trying to do the same. There’s more, please read on.
Makes me want to sit down watch it and pick out any falacies
Would you also recognize its valid points when you noticed any, or would you just go hypercritical on it? I don’t feel the latter is a healthy mindset in general, to be honest you with you.
You mention—and I appreciate that—that you didn’t watch the entire video. I understand that, because it’s lengthy and we all need to be judicious with how we spend our time. But in this instance, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees, overly focusing on one specific fault to the point of disregarding the rest of the effort.
From your other comment:
I’m sorry, but who else is trying?
Doesn’t matter, the false dichotomy is our way is the right way because no one else is trying.
I don’t think that’s the spirit. It’s more along the lines of, “this may not be ideal, but it’s the best we have right now, and it’s unlikely you’ll have other options, if any, before more avoidable damage is done to the industry.” Which I find entirely believable. Momentum is a widely understood political tool, you see it every election.
It’s not necessarily the right way, but it sure is your best shot.
Just like we don’t always get to vote for the politicians we want, but the ones we need, among the ones we can.
Your focus on…
Best, not only.
…is not key to the discussion at large, and borders on pedantic.
Right, because I’m specifically talking about fallacies. You’re currently exhibiting the fallacy fallacy, which is when you assume an argument is wrong because it’s fallacious.
I have my judgement on this topic already (I’m not for or against it, but its more complicated than that too), I’m responding to people who are struggling to understand even the first fallacy that I found, which honestly makes me think this is actually really important to do.
If you can’t see the flaws in the argument that “we’re making the first bridge across this river, so we’re your only hope for a bridge across the river”. You’re going to have some really tough times not being scammed.
I’ve spent more time in this comment section having to explain how that’s a fallacious argument than I spent watching the video. This is utterly absurd that I need to explain that just because there’s only one initiative doesn’t mean it’s the only possible initiative.
You lot are having an argument against a position I don’t hold and a argument I’m not making.
I sincerely apologize if I misrepresented your position, I hate it when that happens to me. Maybe I was too defensive. I genuinely tried to engage with your original comment as I understood it. It didn’t help that, in my experience, people who start off a discussion like this:
Makes me want to sit down watch it and pick out any falacies, but let’s be honest, that’s not likely to happen.
Tell me you don’t understand fallacies without telling me you don’t understand fallacies I guess.
Are often not discussing in good faith.
If you can’t see the flaws in the argument that “we’re making the first bridge across this river, so we’re your only hope for a bridge across the river”. You’re going to have some really tough times not being scammed.
Yes, but I addressed in my previous comment how I don’t believe that’s the spirit of the message being conveyed.
Regardless, if you’ve already spent that much time in this comment section, there’s no need to drag things out even more. You sound very set in your ideas—whatever they are, what you meant to accomplish; I don’t think I’ve grasped them quite yet—so I won’t bother you further.
Disclaimer: not watched it all
Starting off with a false dichotomy, conflating that no one else is trying so you’re their only hope. Makes me want to sit down watch it and pick out any falacies, but let’s be honest, that’s not likely to happen.
Tell me you don’t understand fallacies without telling me you don’t understand fallacies I guess.
I’m sorry, but who else is trying?
Not /u/cyberspark
Doesn’t matter, the false dichotomy is our way is the right way because no one else is trying.
It’s a fallacy about creating a binary where there isn’t one. Anyone else can start up another initiative. He’s not the only option just because he’s the only one currently trying.
The fact that he has momentum does objectively make supporting his cause your best chance of seeing that goal come to fruition, until/unless there’s a fatal flaw.
Trying to fragment that support into multiple efforts just confuses shit and decreases the chances of success.
Best, not only.
Well your first statement is a subtle strawman. Ross said this way is the only way, because no one else is trying, not that it was the right way.
Secondly, fallacy fallacy, just because it’s a false dichotomy doesn’t mean it’s not also correct. Can anyone just start up another initiative now? Not technically, but practically. Or would any serious attempt just join this movement to add to the momentum. Then if this fails, when can another attempt be made, how long till the ‘political will’ burnt by this campaign is regenerated?
I apologise, I didn’t mean to insinuate that
I never said it was not correct.
Is how I understand Ross wanted his message to be interpreted.
It might be incorrect, but I genuinely don’t know of any other project trying to do the same. There’s more, please read on.
Would you also recognize its valid points when you noticed any, or would you just go hypercritical on it? I don’t feel the latter is a healthy mindset in general, to be honest you with you.
You mention—and I appreciate that—that you didn’t watch the entire video. I understand that, because it’s lengthy and we all need to be judicious with how we spend our time. But in this instance, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees, overly focusing on one specific fault to the point of disregarding the rest of the effort.
From your other comment:
I don’t think that’s the spirit. It’s more along the lines of, “this may not be ideal, but it’s the best we have right now, and it’s unlikely you’ll have other options, if any, before more avoidable damage is done to the industry.” Which I find entirely believable. Momentum is a widely understood political tool, you see it every election.
It’s not necessarily the right way, but it sure is your best shot.
Just like we don’t always get to vote for the politicians we want, but the ones we need, among the ones we can.
Your focus on…
…is not key to the discussion at large, and borders on pedantic.
Right, because I’m specifically talking about fallacies. You’re currently exhibiting the fallacy fallacy, which is when you assume an argument is wrong because it’s fallacious.
I have my judgement on this topic already (I’m not for or against it, but its more complicated than that too), I’m responding to people who are struggling to understand even the first fallacy that I found, which honestly makes me think this is actually really important to do.
If you can’t see the flaws in the argument that “we’re making the first bridge across this river, so we’re your only hope for a bridge across the river”. You’re going to have some really tough times not being scammed.
I’ve spent more time in this comment section having to explain how that’s a fallacious argument than I spent watching the video. This is utterly absurd that I need to explain that just because there’s only one initiative doesn’t mean it’s the only possible initiative.
You lot are having an argument against a position I don’t hold and a argument I’m not making.
I sincerely apologize if I misrepresented your position, I hate it when that happens to me. Maybe I was too defensive. I genuinely tried to engage with your original comment as I understood it. It didn’t help that, in my experience, people who start off a discussion like this:
Are often not discussing in good faith.
Yes, but I addressed in my previous comment how I don’t believe that’s the spirit of the message being conveyed.
Regardless, if you’ve already spent that much time in this comment section, there’s no need to drag things out even more. You sound very set in your ideas—whatever they are, what you meant to accomplish; I don’t think I’ve grasped them quite yet—so I won’t bother you further.
Hope you have a good day.
I admire your patience in interacting with such an obnoxious individual lol