There is no such thing as being a shill by accident - clearly you do not know the meaning of the word you’re using.
True, it’s not literally “every other day” - that’s what is known as hyperbole.
I have been following Ron Watkins since Q switched from 4chan to 8chan and I am simply not impressed. If a whistleblower comes forward, then of course I will be happy to be proven wrong.
No, that wasn’t your point at all - now you’re being disingenuous to prove a point. And you are further being disingenuous by suggesting that I cannot possibly dislike or distrust codemonkey without being the same as distrusting q - which is a false dichotomy. It seems very divisive. To suggest that having a negative opinion about a statement made by someone else in the q orbit makes me a shill in the q community is something that someone who was deliberately trying to cause dissension in the q community would say. I am not accusing you of being a shill, but I am noticing that this entire discourse has on your side been boilerplate knee jerk “how to appear to be a q zealot in a q forum” type bullshit. Worth noting.
They are different: a false dichotomy is a false presentation of two choices as being the only possible choices and necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. A false equivalency is falsely maintaining that two unequal things are the same.
I could have used either in this case. His statement that disliking codemonkeyz is the same as disliking q could be simply referred to as a false equivalency. However, I framed it as a false dichotomy in this case, because he is making the point that I cannot possibly have one opinion of cmz without having the same opinion of q.
From wikipedia:
“A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist". One of the options excluded is that Stacey may be neither communist nor capitalist. False dilemmas often have the form of treating two contraries, which may both be false, as contradictories, of which one is necessarily true. Various inferential schemes are associated with false dilemmas, for example, the constructive dilemma, the destructive dilemma or the disjunctive syllogism.”
“False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."
There is no such thing as being a shill by accident - clearly you do not know the meaning of the word you’re using.
True, it’s not literally “every other day” - that’s what is known as hyperbole.
I have been following Ron Watkins since Q switched from 4chan to 8chan and I am simply not impressed. If a whistleblower comes forward, then of course I will be happy to be proven wrong.
No, that wasn’t your point at all - now you’re being disingenuous to prove a point. And you are further being disingenuous by suggesting that I cannot possibly dislike or distrust codemonkey without being the same as distrusting q - which is a false dichotomy. It seems very divisive. To suggest that having a negative opinion about a statement made by someone else in the q orbit makes me a shill in the q community is something that someone who was deliberately trying to cause dissension in the q community would say. I am not accusing you of being a shill, but I am noticing that this entire discourse has on your side been boilerplate knee jerk “how to appear to be a q zealot in a q forum” type bullshit. Worth noting.
Is a false dichotomy the same as a false equivalency?
They are different: a false dichotomy is a false presentation of two choices as being the only possible choices and necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. A false equivalency is falsely maintaining that two unequal things are the same.
I could have used either in this case. His statement that disliking codemonkeyz is the same as disliking q could be simply referred to as a false equivalency. However, I framed it as a false dichotomy in this case, because he is making the point that I cannot possibly have one opinion of cmz without having the same opinion of q.
From wikipedia:
“A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives. For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that "Stacey spoke out against capitalism, therefore she must be a communist". One of the options excluded is that Stacey may be neither communist nor capitalist. False dilemmas often have the form of treating two contraries, which may both be false, as contradictories, of which one is necessarily true. Various inferential schemes are associated with false dilemmas, for example, the constructive dilemma, the destructive dilemma or the disjunctive syllogism.”
“False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."