4 ms·
> I said this in different ways before and got shoveled because of the way I said it Are you sure that was the problem? Because to me it seems like it’s the ar
by latexr 29d ago
> I said this in different ways before and got shoveled because of the way I said it
Are you sure that was the problem? Because to me it seems like it’s the argument which doesn’t hold. You’re engaging in what is called a False Equivalence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Those things are not the same. Crucially, the food you buy at the store or restaurant is heavily regulated, provenance established, safety checks in place. When there’s a widespread issue, we have systems in place for recalls. The differences don’t stop there, and you can’t ignore them just because the processes so ingrained and well established that you forget they’re there.
- skydhash 29d ago> the food you buy at the store or restaurant is heavily regulated, provenance established, safety checks in place. When there’s a widespread issue, we have systems in place for recalls I live in a country where those things are not regulated and you have to be really careful to not buy something that would send you to the hospital.
- latexr 29d agoAnd would you not agree that is a bad thing?
- Razengan 29d ago> False Equivalence or whatever So is claiming "if people don't keep learning the absolute basics about everything they'll be stupid and useless" Bruh we don't know shit about farming, how to milk an animal, we don't know how to mine, how to smelt ore, yet every day we enjoy the benefits of other people or machines doing those activities. None of those people go around chastising us the way "real coders" are doing now. Though when automation entered their profession they probably grumbled similarly too… or did they? or were they glad of having to do such jobs a little less often?
- latexr 29d ago> So is claiming "if people don't keep learning the absolute basics about everything they'll be stupid and useless" That’s not a false equivalence, there’s nothing being compared there. Also, I have no idea who you’re quoting, but it sure as hell isn’t me and I can’t find a match online for that phrase. Looks like a straw man argument. > Bruh we don't know shit about I’m not your “bruh”, and when you say we you mean you. Either way, you’re just rehashing the same false equivalence despite saying “so is” (implying you do think the first argument is indeed a false equivalence) so I have no idea why you’re back to that.