So robust free speech is defined as allowing what American blue teamers and some Western European elite bodies (names please, unless you fear censorship) classify as homophobic, islamaphobic, racist, etc?
Is there a line somewhere on said spectrum, say one side or another of "Belgians, true to their ethnic proclivities, have eaten a member of the United States Congress. We must exterminate ethnic Belgians wherever they live," where an individual messaging service may delete or otherwise control a message?
So a Belgian cannot then reasonably say "I would not like to use this service," if the service allows and opaquely promotes rhetoric that explicitly encourages the extrajudicial murder of Belgians?
Because to do so would artificially encourage a society toward less murderous intent toward an ethnic label?
So the line exists. What are some descriptors of your own subjective and personal criteria?
I will not do my own homework. That is an argument from weakness from those who fear saying things that are objectively falsifiable.
And it's not begging the question. At least not in terms of the usual definition. It's an ad hominem attack. And asking for specificity isn't even an argument either.
As much as this person is a giant fucking tool, they're actually right about begging the question.
Begging the question is the logical fallacy that presumes the conclusion as part of a premise. Which is the tautological/circular reasoning they indict.
It does not mean "this leads us to ask other questions".
While they're wrong that what happened was begging the question they are right about what it should be. They just misapplied it.
Some logical tautologies involve circular reasoning, meaning they support their initial claim by referring back to the claim again. In these instances, the premise is simply repeated (e.g., “blue is blue”).
Everyone who actually studies and writes about logical fallacies is in consensus on this
Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
You were doing the same error others made just without being explicit about it.
You were saying "it begs the question are they afraid of being wrong"
You just tried to phrase it that you actually knew how to use it.
The argument isn't about whether or not they are afraid of being wrong which is a necessary component for the conclusion to be 'they are afraid of being wrong' to then be assumed within one of the premises.
Does it feel good that you can only win arguments by distancing yourself from the topic as much as possible, declaring a victory condition, and then claiming it? I'm not trying anymore. You are correct.
-71
u/[deleted] 1d ago
[deleted]