4 ms·
You can change the definition of B all you want, it's still a formal fallacy, meaning the argument is literally worthless. You have to structure a very differen
by village-idiot 8y ago
You can change the definition of B all you want, it's still a formal fallacy, meaning the argument is literally worthless. You have to structure a very different argument from what you've shown to assert that bitcoin would reduce national military expenditures, not just tweak the details.
- keymone 8y agoit's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence. if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value. it's really a truism, there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies unless you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda.
- village-idiot 8y ago> it's not about definition of A and B, it's about structure of the sentence I agree! And the structure of the argument is fundamentally invalid. > there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies ... Oh, I guess we don't agree. > it's really a truism "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". > you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda Accusing those who disagree with you of pushing an "agenda" is both a bad argument and bad etiquette. Stop.
- keymone 8y ago> Accusing those who disagree with you but you don't just disagree, you make convoluted invalid arguments. there is no logical fallacy in > if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value it's indeed a case of: > "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly". but on your part.