"We could use the same logic you used to derive your non-forbidden conclusion to derive a forbidden conclusion. Therefore, you're mistaken."
-
@MemberOfSpecies isn't that just argumentum ad absurdum? I mean it breaks down if for some silly reason you forbid lots of true conclusions.
@admittedlyhuman Yes, or "proving too much". But one should be conscious of when the judgment of absurdity is charged with "thoughtcrime".
-
-
@MemberOfSpecies I feel like it might be better to thoughtlegalize truth than to try to build up a Dark Side Logic that doesn't break down. -
@admittedlyhuman "Don't transfer the alleged obvious absurdity of an offensive and forbidden conclusion to other conclusions" seems simple. - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.