132
LaLiga "Talks to Google" About Deleting Piracy Apps From a Million Phones * TorrentFreak
(torrentfreak.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
132 points (100.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
1445 readers
32 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@chicken There is very little actual logic on the internet, absent its coding.
“Fallacy” is a technical term, not simply a derogatory one.
It can be a technical term, but words are defined by their use. If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that's a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn't a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn't to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid. A failure to provide reasoning beyond implied reasoning isn't something most people see as a problem at all.
I think that if someone was arguing in good faith, instead of citing "slippery slope", they would instead ask why you believe one thing will lead to another.
“If you make a claim that one thing will lead to another, and someone says that’s a slippery slope fallacy, what are the chances they will accept that it isn’t a fallacy if you then elaborate on your reasoning for why one thing will lead to another? Basically zero, because what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to…”
I don’t disagree with this at all. That’s why I avoid arguing with people on the internet.
“words are defined by their use.”
This, however, is debatable and highly contested by many in semantics. Although it does represent the most contemporary view.
Well alright, you could consider them to be defined otherwise, but pragmatically you have to think about them that way if you want to effectively communicate with people, since they meant what they meant and you are able to know what they meant so pretending you thought they meant something different will just hold things up. If you don't make a habit of arguing with people on the internet I guess that might be less of a concern.
“what they meant wasn’t to criticize your failure to provide reasoning, it was to dismiss your claim on the basis of its shape and to call you stupid.”
^^^
Arguing with people like this is pointless. And endless.
Sometimes. It's a spectrum; what people take seriously depends on their social environment, so you can get people who have absorbed arguments like that and maybe aren't very rational but still are capable of listening and have worthwhile things to express.