bitkojine on Nostr: Feeding monero maxis to ChatGPT like, “what fallacy is this?”: The fallacy in ...
Feeding monero maxis to ChatGPT like, “what fallacy is this?”:
The fallacy in this argument is false equivalence combined with slippery slope and ad hominem.
Here’s how each applies:
1. False Equivalence: The speaker equates promoting custodial solutions (e.g., centralized or managed solutions for things like cryptocurrency or personal data) with promoting cigarettes to children. These are vastly different issues with different levels of risk and social impact, so comparing them as equally harmful is misleading.
2. Slippery Slope: The argument suggests that promoting custodial solutions leads to something extremely dangerous, without evidence that one would actually lead to the other. This assumes an inevitable, extreme outcome without justifying why that outcome is likely.
3. Ad Hominem: By accusing the other person of wanting to “kill children,” the argument attacks the person’s character or intentions rather than addressing the actual merits of custodial solutions. This diverts attention from the topic to focus on an emotional, personal accusation.
Overall, this argument is an emotionally charged rhetorical attack rather than a rational, evidence-based analysis.
Using a custodial solution for absolutely anything is absolutely 100% never ever ever okay. Promoting custodial solutions is about the same amount of dangerous as promoting Philip Morris cigarettes to children. Why do you want to kill children?
Published at
2024-11-04 18:09:53Event JSON
{
"id": "e54c4ffb2aeda77d68d161c040f3201f42e50aa6a4512b75d442b1e1c860342d",
"pubkey": "4af1b525766ce4400b3ec0bcf703081e2e698c0d307842113e3cf0a8cfa01af5",
"created_at": 1730743793,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Feeding monero maxis to ChatGPT like, “what fallacy is this?”:\n\nThe fallacy in this argument is false equivalence combined with slippery slope and ad hominem.\n\nHere’s how each applies:\n\n\t1.\tFalse Equivalence: The speaker equates promoting custodial solutions (e.g., centralized or managed solutions for things like cryptocurrency or personal data) with promoting cigarettes to children. These are vastly different issues with different levels of risk and social impact, so comparing them as equally harmful is misleading.\n\t2.\tSlippery Slope: The argument suggests that promoting custodial solutions leads to something extremely dangerous, without evidence that one would actually lead to the other. This assumes an inevitable, extreme outcome without justifying why that outcome is likely.\n\t3.\tAd Hominem: By accusing the other person of wanting to “kill children,” the argument attacks the person’s character or intentions rather than addressing the actual merits of custodial solutions. This diverts attention from the topic to focus on an emotional, personal accusation.\n\nOverall, this argument is an emotionally charged rhetorical attack rather than a rational, evidence-based analysis.\n\nnostr:note19ha4ekh4muzuujegaqyxu4dqfjsepw0w8nraxhcthzzajcht00psyyd056",
"sig": "b00339af5e4f292214087959409bada78410a20a60af528822c9c6822dd8c1f3ab40b6758df3622a5f69732c7748b2f2e2f3800e81472d2d0e3f8ade09a00a15"
}
