5 ms·

Why admit to a logical fallacy on a public forum?

• forgotmypw17 4y ago
  My logic is that it is advantageous and desirable to use doubt-inducing statements such as "not established strong evidence" to defend profitable but harmful products. Where is the logical fallacy?
  • formerly_proven 4y ago
    Tobacco use being hugely detrimental to health has been known and scientifically published since the 18th century.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • shawnz 4y ago
    It's advantageous to use such language to defend harmless products too?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • forgotmypw17 4y ago
      What is proven harmless that's been covered in this thread?
      • shawnz 4y ago
        Neither, I'm simply saying your argument applies just as well to harmful products as it does to harmless products, so I don't see how it can be used to argue for the harmfulness of any given product