> If that’s your position you should remove the word “therefore” from your final sentence. Because that word means that the conclusion was drawn from the previous statements.
What if I would have said "the solution on the left is obviously bad, the solution on the middle is obviously bad, therefore the solution is on the right"? That would obviously not be a argument to moderation fallacy, and yet the logic behind the existence of the word "therefore" stays the same. So, the "therefore" does not imply "it is because it is the middle", so, no, the "therefore" does not imply I've chosen the middle simply because it is the middle.
The "therefore" simply means that if I've explored different options and they are bad, it would be clever to consider another one. It does not mean that the middle solution is chosen _solely_ because it is the middle one.
> I’m referring to the often used “good guy law enforcement” arguments
The solution I'm proposing is not to give keys to law enforcement.
> I don’t see how that’s a fallacy. Which one is it?
A fallacy is a incorrect reasoning in an argument that looks correct superficially. It's what you have done here: there is no logical ground to link your counter-argument to my argument, nothing in your counter-argument implies my argument is incorrect. I'm not going to play fallacy golf, it's usually a sign of loosing the forest for the tree.
> Furthermore, the point—which feels ridiculous that it needs to be spelled out—is not that you need to be fighting the legislation 24/7, but that when discussing it you should strive to focus on what it is, not what it could or should be.
That's a terrible strategy. It's basically: "I don't understand the context, I don't know what this bad legislation tries to solve, I don't know what people who push for this legislation wants, I don't understand how the bad aspect from this legislation have appeared and how to remove them".
Again, I'm proposing a solution that is difficult to say no to from honest people that were tricked into thinking the bad legislation was the only way. You propose nothing, you just say "no" and antagonize your interlocutors. Who do you think is the most efficient for potentially make this legislation fail?
> I have said twice that it’s worth to have the conversation
Exact, and this discussion is happening now, and yet, you are saying "it's not the time to have it". That is incorrect, there is absolutely no reason to not have this discussion now, this discussion is very very useful to fight against this legislation.
> Especially here. This part is just plain absurd and an attack with zero basis in reality.
You realise that in this discussion, all you have done is to attack SOMEONE FROM YOUR SIDE, with the argument that they should not use their brain and try to find solution.
Let's also notice that during this discussion, you haven't talked at all of what this legislation is, what we are arguing about now is basically what would be the best strategy to take it down. Your answer to that seems to be "the best strategy is to not discuss strategy, because we can only discuss about what this legislation is", which in itself does not make sense.
You want to talk about what this legislation is, take a page from your own book and stop arguing with me, let people who want to think about the situation and design clever ideas to end up with a win-win situation do what they want.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t read most of that last message yet. No disrespect meant, I’m just tired and don’t think continuing will be a healthy use of time. For either of us.
> You realise that in this discussion, all you have done is to attack SOMEONE FROM YOUR SIDE, with the argument that they should not use their brain and try to find solution.
I did read this part, as the all caps caught my attention. I did not attack you. Disagreeing with parts of your argument in no way reflects on you. Still, my words have seemingly affected you negatively and for that I apologise as it was not my intention. I wish you a genuinely pleasant week.
What if I would have said "the solution on the left is obviously bad, the solution on the middle is obviously bad, therefore the solution is on the right"? That would obviously not be a argument to moderation fallacy, and yet the logic behind the existence of the word "therefore" stays the same. So, the "therefore" does not imply "it is because it is the middle", so, no, the "therefore" does not imply I've chosen the middle simply because it is the middle.
The "therefore" simply means that if I've explored different options and they are bad, it would be clever to consider another one. It does not mean that the middle solution is chosen _solely_ because it is the middle one.
> I’m referring to the often used “good guy law enforcement” arguments
The solution I'm proposing is not to give keys to law enforcement.
> I don’t see how that’s a fallacy. Which one is it?
A fallacy is a incorrect reasoning in an argument that looks correct superficially. It's what you have done here: there is no logical ground to link your counter-argument to my argument, nothing in your counter-argument implies my argument is incorrect. I'm not going to play fallacy golf, it's usually a sign of loosing the forest for the tree.
> Furthermore, the point—which feels ridiculous that it needs to be spelled out—is not that you need to be fighting the legislation 24/7, but that when discussing it you should strive to focus on what it is, not what it could or should be.
That's a terrible strategy. It's basically: "I don't understand the context, I don't know what this bad legislation tries to solve, I don't know what people who push for this legislation wants, I don't understand how the bad aspect from this legislation have appeared and how to remove them".
Again, I'm proposing a solution that is difficult to say no to from honest people that were tricked into thinking the bad legislation was the only way. You propose nothing, you just say "no" and antagonize your interlocutors. Who do you think is the most efficient for potentially make this legislation fail?
> I have said twice that it’s worth to have the conversation
Exact, and this discussion is happening now, and yet, you are saying "it's not the time to have it". That is incorrect, there is absolutely no reason to not have this discussion now, this discussion is very very useful to fight against this legislation.
> Especially here. This part is just plain absurd and an attack with zero basis in reality.
You realise that in this discussion, all you have done is to attack SOMEONE FROM YOUR SIDE, with the argument that they should not use their brain and try to find solution.
Let's also notice that during this discussion, you haven't talked at all of what this legislation is, what we are arguing about now is basically what would be the best strategy to take it down. Your answer to that seems to be "the best strategy is to not discuss strategy, because we can only discuss about what this legislation is", which in itself does not make sense.
You want to talk about what this legislation is, take a page from your own book and stop arguing with me, let people who want to think about the situation and design clever ideas to end up with a win-win situation do what they want.