• Morgikan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, that wouldn’t be a straw man argument. If you’re going to try to call fallacy on something you would have to argue appeal to hypocrisy. However the hypocrisy is based on your post and previous posts calling for a boycott for something you find morally reprehensible while at the same time using a platform created by the morally reprehensible. One you have a problem with the other you do not. It calls into question your own morals when they only serve you when you think they should. That’s all.

    • aes <she/her>@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah uh no, I didn’t argue one way or the other about a boycott. That was your assumption and you’re trying to get me to fight it. If I cared to tell people what to think about a heated topic on the internet and then defend my position it from a bunch of mouthbreathers, I would go back to Reddit.

      Your comment is a de facto strawman.

      • Morgikan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You seen to be getting pretty upset about this topic for someone not arguing about it. If you don’t have a position, that’s fine. It doesn’t seem that way, but that’s you. Also that’s again not how straw man is defined.