
8 days
For anybody else reading this, this fallacy is called “moving the goalpost”.
One could also argue for “motte and bailey”, but that’s less clear.

For anybody else reading this, this fallacy is called “moving the goalpost”.
One could also argue for “motte and bailey”, but that’s less clear.

Yeah, I just assumed English isn’t their first language? But that’s hardly the point

Can’t prove a negative, but a cost benefit analysis says it’s set unlikely. Think of what you need:
Those are all not unsolvable issues, but they all make it more expensive. And what’s the benefit that justifies that cost?
You’d get bored of the novelty long before you kill the amount of people that justifies the expense.

Those devices are smartphones. Easier to track, too.

It’s why I always go for vanilla the first time at an ice cream place.
Well, what one could argue is that “Tetris isn’t number one” was the untenable position, and “capitalism has sold more overall” was the irrefutable one.
Oh well, the 2 fallacies are very similar with a big overlap, but if I may summarize it down to the point that I find most important:
If someone is proven wrong and they don’t take full responsibility for that (e.g. by trying to quickly push the discussion somewhere else where they’re not wrong), talking to them won’t lead you to the truth.