Citizens need to have their own war game simulations on what tyrannical politicians might try to do in a crisis, so we can push our plans through instead of their virus war game plans.
You just have to remember that fallacious arguments can still be true, and most of the examples given in textbooks are pretending that the genuine implication isn't there.
If you say "Rising prices coming from printed money is a slippery-slope fallacy", you're pretending that the cause and effect relationship is either speculative or undefined, when in reality, it is well-established. The reactionaries on the right have fallen into the trap of letting the Left dictate terms for them.
Or in other words, the fallacy fallacy. Just because your opponent's logic falls within the bounds of a logical fallacy, does not mean their conclusions are necessarily incorrect.
The fallacy isn't A>Z because A>B>C>..>Z, it's only a fallacy when you state A leads to Z without mentioning the intervening steps. The fallacy also requires the use of deductive reasoning, not inductive.
Citizens need to have their own war game simulations on what tyrannical politicians might try to do in a crisis, so we can push our plans through instead of their virus war game plans.
Those are called militias. And they're mostly FBI agents.
Yes, it's still a fallacy.
You just have to remember that fallacious arguments can still be true, and most of the examples given in textbooks are pretending that the genuine implication isn't there.
If you say "Rising prices coming from printed money is a slippery-slope fallacy", you're pretending that the cause and effect relationship is either speculative or undefined, when in reality, it is well-established. The reactionaries on the right have fallen into the trap of letting the Left dictate terms for them.
Or in other words, the fallacy fallacy. Just because your opponent's logic falls within the bounds of a logical fallacy, does not mean their conclusions are necessarily incorrect.
Right.
The fallacy isn't A>Z because A>B>C>..>Z, it's only a fallacy when you state A leads to Z without mentioning the intervening steps. The fallacy also requires the use of deductive reasoning, not inductive.
More like, without explaining that there are intervening steps, and that they are direct causal relationships as well.
The left likes to pretend that the simplified implication isn't one. Then the right gets tripped up and thinks that the fallacy isn't real.
This is about regaining control over your data and your identity!
...
by giving it to the government.
Yellow Stars 2: Not just for Jews Boogaloo.