3 ms·

No it wasn't a non-sequitur. Instead of repeating myself I'll just link to this good explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49197575 https://news.yco

• Dylan16807 2mo ago
  That explanation doesn't work. They advocated for competition instead of ogliopoly. You decided to talk about a completely different and irrelevant way there could be a lack of competition. Even if your conclusion is right, that they would be against communism if it was a realistic threat here, there was no reason to bring it up. I could say that a bunch of badly placed volcanos would reduce competition and they must be against those volcanos. Such a statement is technically true but it's a non-sequitur.
  • ericmay 2mo ago
    You're free to disagree with my explanation but it's logical and consistent and I'm happy to continue to stand by that.