4 ms·

I also explained why I agreed with the statement, explained why I felt that the straw man claim was spurious, and linked to an article that explained how I felt

I also explained why I agreed with the statement, explained why I felt that the straw man claim was spurious, and linked to an article that explained how I felt about the use of fallacies thus.

Dylan16807 5y ago
If you look at their other comments, it's very obvious they're not saying it should be free of regulation. For you to have said you still agree with that assessment, even after clarification was made, was you being completely unreasonable.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  > If you look at their other comments, it's very obvious they're not saying it should be free of regulation. > > For you to have said you still agree with that assessment There's a difference of meaning here. Original criticizer and I are saying that this person thinks that this event is free of regulation from the SEC because they're the wrong body. Not free from all regulation. You misunderstand what I, and I think also they, have said. . > For you to have said you still agree with that assessment, even after clarification was made, was you being completely unreasonable. Another possibility is that you've misunderstood the meaning? I wish people would be less condemning in this thread.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    The strawman was > You can't just magically say, "I'm a not a thing at all, you can't regulate me!" Sounds like "free of all regulation" to me. Maybe you didn't mean "all regulation", but then in addition to confusingly saying it wasn't a strawman you really flubbed the wording on "the claim that someone can merely opt out of regulation" by not making that distinction clear.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      > The strawman was > You can't just magically say, "I'm a not a thing at all, you can't regulate me!" > > Sounds like "free of all regulation" to me. Yes, if you cut away the express context of this person declining the specific things the SEC already said, it does start to sound different. . > you really flubbed the wording You're welcome to believe that. I didn't ask. I see that after learning that you criticized someone for something they didn't say, your preference is to pursue further criticism. . > by not making that distinction clear. Literally all I had to do was repeat it. . Have a good day.

I also explained why I agreed with the statement, explained why I felt that the straw man claim was spurious, and linked to an article that explained how I felt about the use of fallacies thus.

Dylan16807 5y ago

If you look at their other comments, it's very obvious they're not saying it should be free of regulation. For you to have said you still agree with that assessment, even after clarification was made, was you being completely unreasonable.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> If you look at their other comments, it's very obvious they're not saying it should be free of regulation. > > For you to have said you still agree with that assessment There's a difference of meaning here. Original criticizer and I are saying that this person thinks that this event is free of regulation from the SEC because they're the wrong body. Not free from all regulation. You misunderstand what I, and I think also they, have said. . > For you to have said you still agree with that assessment, even after clarification was made, was you being completely unreasonable. Another possibility is that you've misunderstood the meaning? I wish people would be less condemning in this thread.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  The strawman was > You can't just magically say, "I'm a not a thing at all, you can't regulate me!" Sounds like "free of all regulation" to me. Maybe you didn't mean "all regulation", but then in addition to confusingly saying it wasn't a strawman you really flubbed the wording on "the claim that someone can merely opt out of regulation" by not making that distinction clear.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    > The strawman was > You can't just magically say, "I'm a not a thing at all, you can't regulate me!" > > Sounds like "free of all regulation" to me. Yes, if you cut away the express context of this person declining the specific things the SEC already said, it does start to sound different. . > you really flubbed the wording You're welcome to believe that. I didn't ask. I see that after learning that you criticized someone for something they didn't say, your preference is to pursue further criticism. . > by not making that distinction clear. Literally all I had to do was repeat it. . Have a good day.