4 ms·

That's like saying cash enabled drug and arms trade, or that encryption enables terrorists to communicate. Cash, Bitcoin, and encryption are neutral technologi

• amelius 6y ago
  Analogies are usually not the correct way to proceed in an argument. Let me quote from [1]: > Weak analogy > Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy. > Example: “Guns are like hammers—they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers—so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous.” While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share—it would be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it. In this case the distinction between cash and Bitcoin is exactly what enables criminals to benefit from their crimes. [1] https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/