Re:YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer...
by nailer on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @01:13AM
(#23686783)
Now rate limit is over:
My post didn't say write that Molyneux's statements were true. My post didn't 'imply' they were true either - they provided possible arguments both for and against. The point is that you disagreeing, taking offence, or providing alternative explanations has no bearing on what is true. Which is true.
A. You did not state lack of evidence. You stated that you 'disagreed pretty hard'. Please read your own comment.
B. You suggested another possible explanation for Iraq not forming a viable democratic government. I could think of a third argument which I personally think is the more likely explanation. But that doesn't refute the original point. It just suggests another possible explanation.
You are suggesting that someone finding an idea offensive, or someone bad believing in an idea, or an alternative idea existing would make that idea wrong. That is not how logic works.
My post didn't say write that Molyneux's statements were true. My post didn't 'imply' they were true either - they provided possible arguments both for and against. The point is that you disagreeing, taking offence, or providing alternative explanations has no bearing on what is true. Which is true.
A. You did not state lack of evidence. You stated that you 'disagreed pretty hard'. Please read your own comment.
B. You suggested another possible explanation for Iraq not forming a viable democratic government. I could think of a third argument which I personally think is the more likely explanation. But that doesn't refute the original point. It just suggests another possible explanation.
You are suggesting that someone finding an idea offensive, or someone bad believing in an idea, or an alternative idea existing would make that idea wrong. That is not how logic works.