Sure, I'll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you've committed in this thread. 1. Ad Hominem Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself. Quote: “If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.” Formal Logic:   (I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)   Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC) This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced. 2. Genetic Fallacy Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content. Quote: “Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.” Formal Logic:   (Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made. 3. Motte and Bailey Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged. Quote: “So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.” Formal Logic:   Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”   You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”   Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”   Then argue:   ¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P It's a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes! 4. Fallacy Fallacy Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false. Quote: “Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’...” Formal Logic:   (∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)   Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A) Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians). 5. Begging the Question Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning. Quote (from your rebuttal): “Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…” Formal Logic:   (You assume: ¬P)   Then argue: ¬P   \[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”] You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it. 6. Poisoning the Well Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously. Quote: “Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.” Formal Logic:   Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person) This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments. edit: fixing formatting

What kind of beans is this?

I watched the YouTube video of this, don't know if they left this out of the written report but they said nothing about individuals running AI on their own hardware or cloud services. It was only about OpenAI and DeepSeek

https://lemmy.world/c/the_pack

Thank you for your work, it's perfect

Oh is that one of Ozzy's kids?

I've read people's stories before were their number got listed somewhere and people just never stops calling even though it is the wrong number. It has never happened to me but it really sounds terrible. Sound of an block any unknown caller seems like the only option (but not so great if you are applaying for a job).

I don't know, I believe this footage might have been tampered with. Why is the horses mane not moving?

Monkey: Did I leave the gas on!

lorem ipsum dolor sit aw fuck even i'm bored

Boxed wine is already in a plastic bag so that's not such a worry

[image: be666f6c-13fd-4958-8570-65594ad90b7c.webp]

[image: 688a12ee-3d5d-426e-99e1-519083c0f3a0.jpeg]

I hear your frustration, and I won’t deny that some feminist spaces have blind spots or even hostility toward men’s issues. But dismissing the entire movement because of those flaws is like rejecting democracy because some politicians are corrupt it throws out the good with the bad. Feminism, at its core, is about dismantling rigid gender roles, which harms men too (e.g., stigma around male vulnerability, custody biases, conscription). You’re right that some self-labeled feminists don’t live up to that ideal, but that doesn’t negate the millions who fight for parental leave, against male suicide stigma, or for LGBTQ+ rights. If you’ve been burned by hypocrites, I get it but I’d encourage you to judge ideas by their best advocates, not their worst. That said, I’m open to your examples. If we agree the goal is equality, maybe we can find common ground on where movements fall short.

I'm not talking about feminists who actually know their stuff (such as most - but not all - who make podcasts on the subject). Those are niche subcultures. I'm talking about the self-proclaimed feminists on social media like TikTok, Instagram, or the comment sections on Reddit and Facebook. The people that the general public comes in contact with and who shape the meaning of our language. Your attempt at gatekeeping kind of underscores my point. But yes you're right that when I said 90% I didn't base it on some scientific survey. It's the general sense that I get on the internet and read what's on my feed.

Nonstop-nut-november

OP's name is Pepe and there are multiple .de sockpuppets upvoting each other in the comments