Slashdot Mirror

This slope is so slippery that there is no possible way to move any direction but down.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

How is this off topic? Extremists love to present slippery slope arguments. Don't allow gay marriage or people will marry their cat. Don't let in any refuges because they will kill us all, etc, etc. Some content clearly has no purpose in the public discourse. The votes are rigged because cousin bob heard someone dead was voting, etc, etc.

Private companies can do what the hell they want as for as content removal. Nothing in the constitution protects that. If they don't want their sites covered in filth, they have that right. About the only action I see worth taking as a result of such things is to support net neutrality, but trump's people don't, so good luck with that.

And the problem with your reasoning is that content isn't an issue yet you insist it is. Sticks and stones don't exist virtually, it's just bits and bytes.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

This slope is so slippery that there is no possible way to move any direction but down.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.
source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Rather than argue by providing a reason for why Google would do this in poor faith you simply smear them and insinuate some form of collusion.

I didn't "insinuate" anything. It's an established fact that Facebook and Google, as well as their owners, are strong supporters of the Democrats, and I'm pointing out that these "notices" are consistent with their political biases and economic self-interest. I'm also pointing out that it should be clear that Google has no objective basis on which to determine whether a hack is perpetrated by a "state actor" or not.

Whose sockpuppet are you?

Do some reading.

P.S. You do know that coal mining releases more radiation into the air, and kills more people, than nuclear power - right?

You know that's clever idiocy - right? Opposition to nuclear does not mean support for coal. Now, here's a buttplug you can use to fill that hole in your head:

Your logical fallacy is...false dichotomy.

Personal attack side, you are wrong. You can choose between nuclear, fossil and renewable energy. Given that renewable is not cheap and stable enough at the moment, you are left with the choice between nuclear and fossil, and fossil is mainly coal.

P.S. You do know that coal mining releases more radiation into the air, and kills more people, than nuclear power - right?

You know that's clever idiocy - right? Opposition to nuclear does not mean support for coal. Now, here's a buttplug you can use to fill that hole in your head:

Your logical fallacy is...false dichotomy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Odd how this never seems to factor in unless we are dealing with climate science.

Wrong. I, for one, have pointed this out numerous times regarding matters besides climate science.
However, I'll note that doing so tends to just get everyone who might say something like "science is settled" all huffy and angry at you and they'll then shut down the conversation rather than deal with you rationally.

And that's another bald claim. Why should anyone believe your mere say-so? More importantly, why should anyone but the claimant do research to find out whether or not a claim is valid? This is indeed /. --and yet people debate various points here, and there exist Rules for Debate. The Burden of Proof in any debate always falls upon the one making the "positive" type of claim (e.g., "Hillary committed a crime", or "Evidence is trivial to find via Google"). If the claimant doesn't support the claim, everyone else is entirely free to utterly ignore the claim, exactly as if the claim had been identical to silence.

Tried that. Got a bunch of links to Breitbart and the Washington Times.

Your logical fallacy is: Genetic

"You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."

Scott Adams is not an authority. He did say it. It's true (I read it as well). So what?

Attacking the source on unrelated charges is a sign of believing the charges (not of guilt, because the people doing the attacking are not the people in a position to know). Attacking the source for being unreliable, on the other hand, is completely legitimate.

Saying "the accuser has been known to repeatedly lie and manufacture evidence in the past" is on the point and relevant.

Shachar

Sure he's a sexist scumbag but he's no worse than any of his predecessors or his opponent, both in context of his personality and history.

Your logical fallacy is... Bandwagon.

"Earlier today, the US government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump's candidacy," said Clinton campaign spokesperson Glen Caplin. "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton."

Interpretation: It's all true, but the people revealing it are mean and want to hurt us so you should ignore whatever it is they've revealed. See ad hominem attack.

(a) Appeal to authority. Facts are true or they aren't, and the majority opinion of scientists doesn't affect that.

(b) Catastrophism was proposed by J. Harlen Bretz as an explanation of the geologic features of the Channelled Scablands in Washington state. Basically he mapped out a bunch of geologic features and proposed that they were created by a catastrophic event: the unleashing of a tremendous volume of water that carved out new geologic features in a matter of days.

He was completely dismissed as a crackpot when he proposed it; not just wrong, but also not qualified to have any opinions on geology. The accepted dogma of the time was that everything in geology takes geologic time, not just most things (a strict form of uniformitarianism). 40 years later, his theories became accepted as correct by the mainstream geology community.

P.S. The modern view of uniformitarianism in geology is that most of the time things change slowly as they have all along, but sometimes catastrophic events like a megaflood or a volcanic eruption or a meteor impact can have a sudden effect. This just seems like common sense to me, but I guess the strict form of uniformitarianism seemed like common sense in 1923.

That wasn't a "claim". It was a sarcastically formulated example of an alternative explanation, with just as much, if not more credibility considering how various organizations tend to work, as the one used by the parent. But I guess sarcasm is above your horizon. Either way though, I don't have to "prove" anything other than that the posts I'm replying to is complete hogwash making grand claims the offered "argument" just simply doesn't support - which I have amply done.

Hint: in the face of your original claim (well, another unsubstantiated big claim to begin with?), your alternative explanation does not exhibit the credibility you think it has, but only reminds people of developers of a recently "popular" Linux software project, who keep claiming their badly reinvented features are innovations, and keep blaming users for the software's own flaws. Anyway, since you could still not write a single word to support your original claim, it is reasonable to think you just wanted to troll.

You, on the other hand, seem to have little to offer beyond simple argumentum ad hominem, which btw also isn't an argument, but a fallacy.

Which does not even conform to the definition of ad hominem by anyone but you? By the way, are you sure interlacing ad hominem in your own untenable claims doesn't make you look similar to the usual blood-sucking laywer image?

Two attempts at making an argument, both well outside the court. Well played.

With your own argument not even true to begin with. Nice double standards.

The issue is not GW but AGW

Well, the headline for this article specifically says Global Warming without specifically mentioning whether or not it is caused by human activity.

But if you want to slice it up that way, we can do that, too. Are you disputing whether or not global warming itself is occurring, or are you only disputing whether or not there is a human cause to it?

Either way, you haven't provided any facts to support such a claim. Do you have any facts that either support an idea of global warming being completely independent of human activity or global warming not actually existing at all? Because there are certainly plenty of facts supporting global warming as a global trend, and plenty of solid models showing how human activity has changed the atmosphere drastically enough to bring about climate change.

You certainly don't have to accept the facts if you don't want to - nobody can force you to stop being ignorant - but if you think you have facts to support your beliefs, it would be really interesting to see them.
 
 

So can you promise not to make an appeal to authority?

That is a strange accusation to level, there. Depending on how you view appeal to authority you could potentially attempt to use that as a way to dodge any information that was not personally gathered by the person presenting it to you. It is worth noting that such a dodge goes both ways though in that you would be expected to show your own data - and well beyond just "hey it snowed in Texas last winter hence global warming is bullshit" - in order to not yourself fall into that trap.

So again, do you have any facts to support your beliefs regarding GW/AGW? So far you haven't shown any.

Because the real predictions are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it

Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.

Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.

Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...

Critical Thinking skills moron. Look it up some time and not at wikipedia. There are courses in college that deal this subject. They deal with logical fallacies, flaws in reasoning. For example an ad hominem: Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Critical Thinking is rather important, more so than learning how to program in high school.

I'm not making any assumption. You're making the erroneous assumption that the sum of those numbers is somehow relevant.

Not at all. As I was saying: "the two taxes have simply nothing to do with one another".

I was simply additionally explaining to you that even if you erroneously believe that unearned and earned income ought to be taxed the same, you are calculating it wrong.

Yes, you can have capital gains resulting purely from inflation, but if you're only keeping up with inflation, you're doing very badly.

No, you still don't understand: capital gains taxes can result in more than 100% taxation even if your investments are doing better than inflation.

Not everything the Nazis did was wrong or bad. For example, the Nazis created a road system that was the inspiration for our interstate highway system.

The Nazis also provided free education, free health care, government retirement plans, created jobs, nationalized many industries, prohibited unearned income and speculation, and created massive public works projects, including the Autobahn. I have no doubt that you like most of their economic and social programs, as they were quite similar to modern progressives. You simply and erroneously believe that these policies you like can be separated from the totalitarian and genocidal policies the Nazis also had, when they are in fact closely linked.

That entire paragraph is basically nothing more than an ad hominem.

An ad hominem would be "you're wrong because you're a Nazi"; what I said (roughly) is "you're a Nazi because you're wrong'.

No, such an interpretation is just not plausible.

Well, that's your opinion, not a fact.

Every purchase you make produces a significant and far-reaching economic impact. All of those workers have jobs because you (and others) bought that product. Any belief that consumption doesn't create jobs would require an almost complete disconnect from reality.

Sure, consumer spending has an "economic impact" and it makes GDP and employment numbers look good. But it doesn't actually produce anything of value. If I pay you $1000 to do some useless task, I'm $1000 poorer and you're $1000 richer, the GDP has gone up, but nothing of value has been produced.

It has worked every time anyone has tried it, from Roosevelt to Obama. If that's not enough proof that my economic theories are correct, then you'll never be convinced, which is shame, because you'll still be wrong.

If you consider Obama's piss-poor economic performance (decreased labor participation rates, stagnating middle class, massive increase in government debt) "working", then I certainly want no part of that. Oh, and Hitler also tried it and you can see how that turned out economically.

I did. I found a few that claimed that the Jews in Europe share genetic markers, and share them with indigent residents of the middle east. I did not find anything that supports your claim that the Palestinians share genetic markers distinct from the Arabs. As such, all that proves is that the Jews do, in fact, have a historic connection to the land.

I also did not find the Tel Aviv University research you refer to.

In general, the person making the claim should also be the one providing the proof.

Try again

Clearly, people whose primary job output is not open-source code do not deserve new jobs.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

https://www.logicallyfallaciou...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Yes, his comment may be a fallacy - but that doesn't mean it's not also true.

I say "may" because I'm not convinced that it IS even an ad hominem fallacy. The definition of pretty much every fallacy includes "without any other substantiating evidence" (appeal to emotion and appeal to tradition are notable exceptions) but most things are *only* fallacious if they stand by themselves, NOT when used as a part of a larger argument with strong evidence.
The evidence in this case is Cruz's entire career - which has been massively anti-freedom (and particularly anti-civil-liberties while his time as an AG includes one of the worst breaches of due process in the history of the United States) and pretty much always being on the stupid side of every issue. It is perfectly reasonable then to start assuming that he is more likely than not to be on the stupid side of THIS issue.

Saying it must be the case - that would be fallacious, inductive logic does not lead to absolute truths, but saying it is "probably" the case (as the OP did) - that is absolutely logical and a perfectly reasonable argument. Nobody is saying Cruz can never be right about anything because he is Cruz. We are simply applying the laws of inductive logic - in a thousand "experiments" Cruz has been found to be wrong 999 times, it is reasonable to think he is probably wrong this time as well.

a suggested friend he might want to add

They shared the same car so they must be friends, right?

Certainly not "must" — but "might", which the write-up actually attributes to Facebook, is valid.

Now, why would you attack a strawman?

Congratulations! You have committed a logical fallacy.

Glad to see you have finally admitted that the claim there was a revive l review is a lie. Now you have moved the goal posts

I'm sick of repeating myself, read this comment.

are you really saying this message harassment campaign is justified by this list?

Congratulations! You have just committed a logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Reading the story, the Pope was being kind. That whole thing reads like an adult version of 13 year old drama llamas.

People who write like that need a lot of work just to get minimum veracity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

You really should look up the meaning of ad hominem. You are being called out on being a bald-faced liar in another thread here on slashdot and you are replying by attacking the person who is laying the accusation - rather than actually responding to the accusation.

In other words, the ad hominem attack is coming from you.
 
 

You speak of records when you've gone out of your way to have none.

That is another grand statement from you that you cannot support. ACs do not go out of their way for anything, in general. It is easier to post AC here than it is to setup an account. You are attempting to assign motive but you have nothing upon which to base that assignment.
 
 

ad hominem will backfire just like it did here, moron

As mentioned earlier, the ad hominem attacks are coming from you and only from you. Similarly the fact based arguments are coming from nearly everyone exceptyou.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!)

The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.

That is the claim you and other alarmists are making — and the burden of proving it is on you.

You and yours accept this burden and attempt to prove the claim by pointing at "science" and "experts", who make scary projections for the short- and medium-term future of the climate. You have no proof, other than this appeal to authority of yours...

I say, Ok, appeal to authority is not necessarily wrong, if the authority in question really is an expert. But if it really is a reliable science and the experts making the dire predictions today are trustworthy, where are their past predictions? The idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming is at least 30 years old — surely there must've been some predictions made earlier, that were due on or before 2016.

I've been asking this question for a while, but no one was able to offer a good example of such a prediction. Which is why the claim I actually made, which I quote here with the part you chose to cut off emphasized for clarity, said:

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.

Now you demand, I prove this inability of the adherents to cite successful predictions. But your demand is invalid — I'm not making a "claim" of my own, I'm merely pointing out, you haven't done your duty to prove your original claim. And if you wish to be formal about it, I didn't say you can not prove it. Only that you haven't been able to so far.

Meanwhile, you are so sure of yourself, you wish to end the debate by criminalizing opposition — and that's why I'm not just arguing with you, but also calling you an asshole. I'm tired of the former, though, and will now simply limit myself to the latter.

Read up on this concept of "burden of proof", dimwit.

Here's what I found:

You (that's you!) said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim(that's you!) , but with someone else (that's me!) to disprove.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!), and is not upon anyone else (like me!) to disprove.

I repeat: Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.

Wow, asshole, you really are running ahead of everyone here. "Unable to prove" is equal to "lying" in your opinion?..

Can you prove your claim?

Am I doing this right?

And in most cases, we know why it happened

Actually, no, we do not. Some times an earthquake explains it, but not always.

Not an expert, not some expert, but the experts.

Appeal to authority. Fail. Today's experts may be right. But simply their being considered experts does not prove anything.

What can you and Mr. Nye say today in support of prosecuting opponents of the anthropogenic global warming, that couldn't have been said only 3 years ago to prosecute people feeding children butter?

The "experts' opinions" on the evils of fat were no less "settled" — and only the fraudsters in the pocket of Big Butter would argue against it.

No, what I believe is that 90% of humans are complete and utter morons, who can't be trusted with a firearm. They are irrationnal, moody, have mental problems (depression, mood swings, anxiety, are religious nuts, etc.)

What other civil rights should they not be trusted with? After all, freedom of speech and voting are pretty dangerous...

Having a firearm at home is ok with me, but carrying it everywhere is a bad idea.

I don't know where you live, but if I lived somewhere where I would need a weapon on me at all times to feel safe, I would move out of there as soon as I could.

Wow, all those cops should get a real estate agent...

In fact I'm in my mid forties and so far I've never been in a situation where I needed a firearm on me. And nobody I know (friends, family, coworkers) ever talked to me about a time in their lives when they used, needed or would have needed to have a firearm on them to save their lives or get out of a bad situation.

Still, a lot of them (including me) have firearms at home for hunting, or target shooting. So we're not anti-guns wackos.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

Your numbers are low. However, the more egregious statement I'll take exception to is this one:

We have no evidence that a planet 8c warmer than it is now would be incompatible with human life.

No, 8 degrees C is not "incompatible with human life"!!

That's a strawman argument. Eight degrees C of warming would be a catastrophe in pretty much every way-- people are currently arguing about how bad two degrees of warming would be-- but if you are hearing people say that it would be "incompatible with human life," figure out who those people are and stop listening to them.

This is called the slippery slope fallacy. Canada, Australia, and the UK all have stricter gun laws than the US and have had them for quite some time. Where are all the citizens in the supposed work camps? Your claim is false.

Let's count the logical fallacies displayed here

1. Ad Hominem -- parent must not be a "critical thinker" with the attention span of a gnat, blah, blah, ...
2. Genetic -- parent cites a source I don't like, so his argument is wrong
3. Appeal to Authority -- Climate scientists agree with me, therefore you're wrong

Also implied here is
4. False Dichotomy a.k.a Black or White -- Either AGW is 100% true or its 100% false, no gray area, you are either with us or you are against us...

Next time, A.C., try presenting a cogent argument an add (usefully) to the discussion.

Let's count the logical fallacies displayed here

1. Ad Hominem -- parent must not be a "critical thinker" with the attention span of a gnat, blah, blah, ...
2. Genetic -- parent cites a source I don't like, so his argument is wrong
3. Appeal to Authority -- Climate scientists agree with me, therefore you're wrong

Also implied here is
4. False Dichotomy a.k.a Black or White -- Either AGW is 100% true or its 100% false, no gray area, you are either with us or you are against us...

Next time, A.C., try presenting a cogent argument an add (usefully) to the discussion.

Let's count the logical fallacies displayed here

1. Ad Hominem -- parent must not be a "critical thinker" with the attention span of a gnat, blah, blah, ...
2. Genetic -- parent cites a source I don't like, so his argument is wrong
3. Appeal to Authority -- Climate scientists agree with me, therefore you're wrong

Also implied here is
4. False Dichotomy a.k.a Black or White -- Either AGW is 100% true or its 100% false, no gray area, you are either with us or you are against us...

Next time, A.C., try presenting a cogent argument an add (usefully) to the discussion.

Let's count the logical fallacies displayed here

1. Ad Hominem -- parent must not be a "critical thinker" with the attention span of a gnat, blah, blah, ...
2. Genetic -- parent cites a source I don't like, so his argument is wrong
3. Appeal to Authority -- Climate scientists agree with me, therefore you're wrong

Also implied here is
4. False Dichotomy a.k.a Black or White -- Either AGW is 100% true or its 100% false, no gray area, you are either with us or you are against us...

Next time, A.C., try presenting a cogent argument an add (usefully) to the discussion.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

UEFI in my book is definitely a reason not to buy the hardware using it.

So lock yourself in a cave away from technology is the only option?

Your logical fallacy is: strawman.

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

So, again, your logical fallacy is on display. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

You think you rebutted anything by simply claiming something a 'shill site'? I don't have a problem looking at the pro- AND con- sides. I just look at the arguments and their logical validity. It's just that I find the pro- camp has far less of them.

The same goes for you. I gave you a clear example why it isn't economical viable if one claims a smart-super-grid will solve anything. You didn't counter it at all, nor gave some valid reasons for it. You merely say "The plans for each country are independent." and then conclude "Your complaint is flawed from the outset." that's NOT addressing the issue. At all. You didn't refute or give a rebuttal to anything, not even to anything of the links with criticism I gave you.

There you simply say "It's a shill site, so I don't have to look at the arguments."

Yes, good going. There sure is *someone* being fooled, true. But I think it's rather of the self-delusional kind.

You didn't even comprehend it doesn't need to be 'independent' countries. The same goes for any area where one is dependent on other area's. This can be States within a country, for instance: the same economics apply.

It seems the term 'shill' has become mainstream as a response in slashdot. Of course, if everyone starts using that to counter everyone else one does not agree with, one gets nowhere...

Let's try it this way: instead of dishing or ignoring an argument or reasoning for ad hominem reasons (aka, where it comes from), why not look and debate the arguments itself, instead?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

A valid argument remains valid, nomatter WHO said it, after all. One should focus on the arguments, thus.

Morally, justifying something by putting the good of mankind over an individual leads to all kinds of truly ugly nastiness.

Bullshit. As a society, we routinely engage in self-sacrificing activities for "the good of mankind". We donate our time to charities. We donate money. We even donate our very blood, which can have some serious (though rare) consequences.

It's a matter of risk perception. Donating time or money are perceived as being no risk, even though charities are very often the target of homocides and other violent attacks, and monetary donations have an obvious economic detriment for the donor. Blood drives make a big show of their safety procedures, and continuously promote the benefits that are enabled by such donations. There are no advertising campaigns for clinical trials, though.

Stories like this play on fear, promoting the idea that pharmaceutical companies are careless and cavalier about running harmful clinical trials, when the reality is that of the tens of thousands of drug trials run every year, this one is notable specifically because it had a bad outcome.

And medical testing in particular preys on those who are desperate, or financially in need already. They may not have a gun to your head, but in most cases its not like they'd be taking the drugs if they had better choices.

Also bullshit. Medical testing "preys" on mostly-healthy individuals who meet a particular set of criteria and, most importantly, can be found. That last part is often the most difficult. VERY few people go to their doctors and ask what they can do to help others, except for folks who are looking for unconventional ways to make money. Pharmaceutical researchers usually go to hospital networks and run queries against the hospital databases. Those databases are huge, and not tuned for such queries, so the queries take several months. Ultimately, there are very few qualified candidates returned, and they can be approached and asked to participate.

Unfortunately, most patients, unless they actually need a treatment, will not join a trial. They're under the impression that trials are unnecessarily risky, and usually won't try to understand the risk analysis before rejecting it. Out of a few hundred candidate subjects in the US, only a few dozen will actually participate. Those who are "desperate, or financially in need" are the ones who have enough incentive to overcome the prejudice and consider the actual risks.

Morally, justifying something by putting the good of mankind over an individual leads to all kinds of truly ugly nastiness.

Bullshit. As a society, we routinely engage in self-sacrificing activities for "the good of mankind". We donate our time to charities. We donate money. We even donate our very blood, which can have some serious (though rare) consequences.

It's a matter of risk perception. Donating time or money are perceived as being no risk, even though charities are very often the target of homocides and other violent attacks, and monetary donations have an obvious economic detriment for the donor. Blood drives make a big show of their safety procedures, and continuously promote the benefits that are enabled by such donations. There are no advertising campaigns for clinical trials, though.

Stories like this play on fear, promoting the idea that pharmaceutical companies are careless and cavalier about running harmful clinical trials, when the reality is that of the tens of thousands of drug trials run every year, this one is notable specifically because it had a bad outcome.

And medical testing in particular preys on those who are desperate, or financially in need already. They may not have a gun to your head, but in most cases its not like they'd be taking the drugs if they had better choices.

Also bullshit. Medical testing "preys" on mostly-healthy individuals who meet a particular set of criteria and, most importantly, can be found. That last part is often the most difficult. VERY few people go to their doctors and ask what they can do to help others, except for folks who are looking for unconventional ways to make money. Pharmaceutical researchers usually go to hospital networks and run queries against the hospital databases. Those databases are huge, and not tuned for such queries, so the queries take several months. Ultimately, there are very few qualified candidates returned, and they can be approached and asked to participate.

Unfortunately, most patients, unless they actually need a treatment, will not join a trial. They're under the impression that trials are unnecessarily risky, and usually won't try to understand the risk analysis before rejecting it. Out of a few hundred candidate subjects in the US, only a few dozen will actually participate. Those who are "desperate, or financially in need" are the ones who have enough incentive to overcome the prejudice and consider the actual risks.

So by your logic everyone having monogamous unprotected sex is: helping to spread disease and ought to be held criminally liable.

That's not his logic, that's your logical fallacy.

If you are not going to regulate the bedroom than there is no compelling reason to force vaccination for STDs.

More problems with your false equivalency: you don't have to have sex to get or transmit HPV, kissing is enough.

Your logical falicy is: black-or-white

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

And some old use neither sysv or systemd. They use something newer and less broken.

They don't see systemd and its advocates as a new culture but as exactly the corporate driven nightmare they escaped from a couple of decades ago that spawned the Free software revolution.

Further, they don't see both as 'right',

They see one as a small component that can (and has been by many 'old culture') be replaced by other components in a staged and robust fashion.

They see the other as not that. That systemd, pottering and pals are just wrong and wrong minded.

Your logical fallacy is: Strawman

You are mocking an opinion not actually voiced by your opponents.

Shachar

That doesn't necessarily mean the mocking is unjustified. It certainly is in this particular case.

Your logical fallacy is: Strawman

You are mocking an opinion not actually voiced by your opponents.

Shachar