Hey, my enthusiasm is genuine!

I think dems genuinely believe that if Republicans take control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, that they will absolutely implement a nationwide ban, which will reduce access. That implies it’s still a valid concern and not a scare tactic.

And even though overall abortions have increased, there has still been a restriction in access, it’s just that enough people can still afford to overcome those restrictions (for now), as well as Dems pushing to allow meds by mail to help alleviate the restrictions.

But, there have already been unfortunate consequences to the health and lives of women who couldn’t afford to overcome the restrictions, or it was too late, or they were convicted a crime if they did obtain access.

So again, not a scare tactic if they are actual things that are happening, and will just get worse with a nationwide ban.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that dems want to increase abortions. They want increased access to abortion, but that’s not the same thing.

This really hurts Republicans more than Dems. Let’s say you have a goal of reducing “x”, so you pass a law banning it, but that causes a noticeable increase in the behavior. Your law made things objectively worse towards accomplishing your goal.

If you think the increased occurrence is justified as long as people are punished for it, then you don’t actually care about reducing abortion, you just want to punish people for it.

I will typically use the terms asynchronous and parallel when discussing the concepts, but I hadn’t thought about using multitasking until I saw that comment. I mean, even C# calls them “tasks”.

A comment on the YouTube video makes a good point that we already have a better word for the concept of dealing with multiple things at once: multitasking. Using a word that literally means “things happening at the same time” just adds to the confusion, since people already have a difficult time understanding the distinction between multitasking and concurrency.

I considered editing my post to say the vast majority instead of everybody, but I was hoping you weren’t going to be that pedantic. It was very clear that 13 years ago, reddit was already having the argument because it was so pervasive that all the purists were upset about it.

Post from 13 years ago, basically agreeing that everyone ignored the “rule” and used upvote/downvote as glorified agree/disagree buttons:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/s/HAxw7Z9PE4

I’ve tried using SFC multiple times and had it work zero times. One time after SFC failed to find anything wrong, I ended up fixing the machine by replacing the system file with a copy from a working machine.

For someone who likes to think of himself as a modern Nikola Tesla, he acts much more like Edison.

But, don’t you see? His idea works in a vacuum!

If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions.

Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though

I’ve been using ForwardEmail, and have been happy with them so far. Their free tier only allows aliasing, but the cheapest paid tier is only $3/month, and you can use Thunderbird/K-9 as your mail client.

You can be popular without being intelligent.

Maybe impartial information more than disinformation. It’s still likely the responses from late Saturday and Sunday would have impacted the percentage by at least 1 or 2 points. The fact it stayed the same hopefully means that at best it simply prevented Biden from taking the lead.

Thanks, I had considered linking a reference, but I didn’t think he was disputing the definition. He was disputing my analysis that this was a valid example of the fallacy.

Maybe I have the wrong fallacy, or I’m just really stretching on this one.

This was my line of thinking:

• premise = there are no valid reasons to dislike X
• conclusion = people who dislike X don’t have any valid reasons

Begging the question is a logical fallacy that assumes the conclusion within the premise. If OP was not being genuine, then the faulty conclusion would be “there are no good reasons to dislike GrapheneOS, therefore why do people dislike GrapheneOS?”

It’s very close to begging the question, though. It really depends on OP’s actual intent, which is hard to determine through text. But it does seem like it could have a, “Those of you who still hate GrapheneOS, why are you wrong?” tone to it.

Edit: Reading through OP’s comments, they do sound genuine to me, I’m mostly just explaining why someone might mistake the post for begging the question.

Of course antimatter falls down