3 ms·

Step 1. Claim parent argument is, instead, some strawman. Step 2. Argue against strawman.

by euyyn 10y ago

confluence 10y ago
He was very clever with that wasn't he? Everyone should be free to consume whatever they want, so long as they know what they want is killing them, and there are no distortions by the purveyors of such products that they are anything other than what they are - namely bad for you. You want to smoke? Go ahead. You want to get obese and severely shorten both your life and its quality by consuming caloric dense nutrient deficient drinks/foods? Go right on ahead. It's your life to screw up. But don't you dare stand there and tell me that letting these corporations that profit from the damage people do to themselves be free to run around going "OH NO cigarettes are totally fine! OH NO diet isn't the issue - just exercise more - here have a coke". Kids are literally dying because of this shit, and I frankly won't stand by it. What I am against is systematic and dirty propaganda operations that directly harm the national interest for trivial sums of profit by lying to the population through their teeth and in turn inflicting untold amounts of misery on millions of our citizens.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  I wasn't clever at all; if you think that the sugary drink companies are fine to exist as long as they don't push propaganda about sugary drinks, then there IS a way to win - all they have to do is stop the propaganda. That isn't what your statement I replied to said... you said there was NO way for them to win.
cortesoft 10y ago
I wasn't trying to create a strawman. The claim that I was arguing against said "They can't win because they are on the wrong side of history" So the commenter claims "they can't win". That means that even if they stopped all the PR work defending sugar, they still wouldn't win and they would still be on the wrong side of history. If they have no way to win, then the only thing they can do is stop existing at all. If the commenter supports their right to exist as a company making sugary drinks, then there IS a way to win.
- euyyn 10y ago
  Then the problem is you jumped ahead too much. The "can't win" part came from what that guy was responding to. Your parent argument was just "no, people won't give them a break because what they're doing with PR and marketing is morally reprehensible". That's it.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    If that was the argument he was trying to make, then he should have said "no, they can't win UNTIL they completely stop with the morally reprehensible PR and marketing" He never once mentions what they could do to 'win'.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      He's responsible for what he says. But you're also responsible for what you understand.

Step 1. Claim parent argument is, instead, some strawman. Step 2. Argue against strawman.

by euyyn 10y ago

Step 1. Claim parent argument is, instead, some strawman. Step 2. Argue against strawman.

He was very clever with that wasn't he? Everyone should be free to consume whatever they want, so long as they know what they want is killing them, and there are no distortions by the purveyors of such products that they are anything other than what they are - namely bad for you. You want to smoke? Go ahead. You want to get obese and severely shorten both your life and its quality by consuming caloric dense nutrient deficient drinks/foods? Go right on ahead. It's your life to screw up. But don't you dare stand there and tell me that letting these corporations that profit from the damage people do to themselves be free to run around going "OH NO cigarettes are totally fine! OH NO diet isn't the issue - just exercise more - here have a coke". Kids are literally dying because of this shit, and I frankly won't stand by it. What I am against is systematic and dirty propaganda operations that directly harm the national interest for trivial sums of profit by lying to the population through their teeth and in turn inflicting untold amounts of misery on millions of our citizens.

cortesoft 10y ago
I wasn't clever at all; if you think that the sugary drink companies are fine to exist as long as they don't push propaganda about sugary drinks, then there IS a way to win - all they have to do is stop the propaganda. That isn't what your statement I replied to said... you said there was NO way for them to win.

cortesoft 10y ago

I wasn't trying to create a strawman. The claim that I was arguing against said "They can't win because they are on the wrong side of history" So the commenter claims "they can't win". That means that even if they stopped all the PR work defending sugar, they still wouldn't win and they would still be on the wrong side of history. If they have no way to win, then the only thing they can do is stop existing at all. If the commenter supports their right to exist as a company making sugary drinks, then there IS a way to win.

euyyn 10y ago
Then the problem is you jumped ahead too much. The "can't win" part came from what that guy was responding to. Your parent argument was just "no, people won't give them a break because what they're doing with PR and marketing is morally reprehensible". That's it.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  If that was the argument he was trying to make, then he should have said "no, they can't win UNTIL they completely stop with the morally reprehensible PR and marketing" He never once mentions what they could do to 'win'.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    He's responsible for what he says. But you're also responsible for what you understand.