erin (she/her)

I mean the danger of capsizing in a cruise ship is vanishingly tiny, and the Navy has similarly top heavy vessels, like aircraft carriers. They have massive keels, and their displacement is so huge that rough seas mean almost nothing to them. You’re far more likely to die in millions of more common activities than to a cruise ship capsizing. I don’t really see how taking statistics is helping your argument at all, as statistics are on the cruise’s side. Driving or riding in a car is far more dangerous.

Now, cruise ships suck for other reasons, like their exploitation of poor countries and massive carbon emissions. Arguing against cruise ships from a statistical safety standpoint is like arguing against airplanes because they could crash, regardless of how likely. The cruise ship excursions and activities on board are more dangerous than their seaworthiness.

I cannot read your comment without great difficulty. I’m sounding it out like I’m learning to read lmao

My dyslexia nightmare.

Saying “your views support this” is not making the argument you’re claiming it does.

You claimed they made several strawman arguments. The one you are pointing to is where they called your argument corporate apologia, which isn’t a strawman, whether you are or are not l, as it’s referring to the beneficiaries of your argument, which they argue to be corporations. The points they are making are sound.

For example (none of this is my actual beliefs), I could make an argument for unrestricted gun ownership. Someone, in disagreement with me, could say I need to take my gun lobby apologia and leave, after discussing why my position supports the gun lobby. In actuality, hypothetical me wants easier gun ownership for queer people and other marginalized groups. Me not supporting the gun lobby doesn’t make that a strawman. They aren’t making a strawman argument by saying because my argument supports the gun lobby, it is automatically invalid.

They do this exact same thing against your argument. They argue the points that your beliefs ultimately support corporations, not that your opinion is automatically invalid because you support corporations. If all they said was that last line about corporate apologia, you’d have a point, but they don’t. You’re simply misusing and diluting the strawman fallacy. You also claimed they made several strawman arguments, but failed to demonstrate the one example you pulled. I don’t even really care about your arguments or theirs in regards to my response, as others have covered my beliefs already, I only am concerned in discussing the improper use of logical fallacies to discredit people you disagree with.

I suppose you’re talking about the part about your post history, which seems flimsy. Just because some of your posts agree with the other poster doesn’t mean the ones specifically referred to don’t exist. A strawman is putting your ideas up framed such that you do not support them, but arguing that you do in order to make a simpler argument. That doesn’t appear to be happening, as lacking nuance isn’t the same thing as a strawman. You do seem to be making the argument referred to, and having a nuanced position from other posts doesn’t make that untrue. It also seems irresponsible to use that one point to discredit the entire argument, which broadly doesn’t care about said point.

I don’t see it, as it seems like you are in fact arguing that tools are neutral. Giving counter examples isn’t the same thing as a strawman, it’s challenging your argument. Did you mean a different part of their argument?

I understand that you disagree with their points, but I’m more interested in where the strawman arguments are. I don’t see any, and I’d like to understand if I’m missing a clear fallacy due to my own biases or not.

Can you point out and explain each strawman in detail? It sounds more like someone made good analogies that counter your point and you buzzword vomited in response.

The “women are always screaming” stereotype is sexist. It’s a direct extension of the pseudoscientific hysteria diagnosis that used to be commonly accepted. “A women,” as you put it, might scream, and you might find that annoying. Women as a category have higher pitched voices on average, and the line between “reasonable yelling” and “hysterical screaming” is often just one of pitch, even when the cause for alarm or injury is the same.

Additionally, neither I nor any of the women in my life “scream” in response to injury. We yell in pain just like someone with a masculine voice, if a bit higher pitched. Some may, but it’s not common and is usually reserved for situations of extreme alarm or fear, or occasionally excitement. Any time a woman does scream on video, you always see someone in the comments complaining about how annoying women screaming is. The same is never said about men screaming, unless they scream “like a girl.”

9/10 times. How out of touch are you?

I thought the point of this was to treat them both the same. If yes, you’re not cool for invalidating two people’s genders, if no, you’re still not cool for invalidating one person’s gender. Maybe I’m misreading but I don’t see your comment represented in the meme.

whether they are ever released or not

This is the most important line. They might not ever be able to be rehabilitated. Maybe there’s something broken in them that can be fixed with therapy. Maybe there isn’t, and they never can be released without significant danger of reoffending. Either way, it isn’t our place to execute anyone for their crimes. If there is a crime, there will be innocent people convicted of it, and if there is a death penalty, there will be innocent people that receive it. The entire point of the post is that the definition of “pedo” continues to be expanded, until it’s really just being used as an ever expanding label to apply to political out-groups.

Where you draw the line may be different from where others draw the line, but no matter where you draw the line, some innocent person is dying, and maybe someone that committed no crime but being marginalized. As the post said, conservatives have been trying to expand the definition of pedophile to include queer people for decades, and ramping up the violent rhetoric as well. The more we advocate for violence against those we consider deserving, even if their crime is heinous, the more we assist those trying to expand the definition in their attempt to wield that hatred as a weapon against their chosen targets.

In summary, if you’re okay with the death penalty for pedophiles, then you’re okay with innocent people that were convicted wrongfully being executed too, and maybe for political reasons if the right gets their way.

It’s Lemmy, and it took maybe 5 minutes of scrolling for this to be on my front page. Your comment irked me and I want to increase engagement on the site, sue me.

They never said they’re in the left lane, and in fact specifically specified against it. Sounds like you’re both defensive and an aggressive driver.

Regardless, she’s acclaimed and talented. Her performance was excellent. Her previous performances have been excellent. If all the hypothetical naysayers have to go on is career length, it seems like a very weak motive for selective hatred.

I feel like characterizing Halle Bailey as “just some chick” is disingenuous at best.

What radicalism? What part of that ideal is radical? Also, a bizarre reaction. “My beliefs were challenged in the slightest, therefore this person must be silenced.” Weirdo.

Every vegan

Factually incorrect and anecdotal

the concept of death doesn’t even exist in most animal minds

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8602129/

Good read, though anyone that’s seen a pet mourn their owner or their friend knows that’s not true already.

can’t take you seriously anymore

It’s a portmanteau of debater and statist. Frankly, I don’t care what you think about me. You’re clearly biased beyond any reason as to the motives of others, to the point of making false blanket statements about entire groups. Any time someone says “all _____ are _____,” there is a problem and they should be questioned. Did the vegans you approach solicit your question? If they did not, then mind your own business. If they did, and “flip their shit,” (X to doubt on the reliability of this narrator) then that one person had an issue. The sheer fact that you can easily find very chill vegans online or irl without much effort means you’re a statistical anomaly, an asshole, or misrepresenting the truth.

The premise of your previous comment was that regardless of the health effects (ie: if vegan cat food is healthy), the cats didn’t consent to it. That argument doesn’t make any sense. I don’t disagree that cats need proper nutrition, again, I feed my cat meat. I just think your argument based on consent is not well founded and there are better ways to argue your point without making a strange implication about ignoring consent. I don’t think forcing a cat to be vegan is okay, unless that diet is properly supplemented with all the nutrients the cat needs, which may or may not be possible. I don’t know. Again, I’m not arguing for cats to be fed vegan. I’m arguing against using consent as the angle against veganism, because that opens up a whole can of worms as to hypocrisy. I’m not vegan, and there are perfectly good reasons to be or not be vegan, but animal consent definitely isn’t an argument to be made against veganism unless you want to confront the issues with animals just as intelligent as cats, or more, being consumed as food.

Weird personal attack there. Care to explain?