Comment on May 13, 1985
Nevoic@lemm.ee 1 month agoYeah no need to get this hostile.
The word “terrorist” was used, and getting into the etymology of the word is best exemplified by how large “non-terrorist” organizations operate exactly like large terrorist organizations.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Yeah but what about the CIA, right? Those are an example of terrorists, right? But yeah what about Hillary Clinton’s Emails? But what about the cost of recycling solar? What about it, right? What about those, you got an answer for those?
Nevoic@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Exactly. And saying “what about” isn’t always a fallacy. That’s like thinking anyone says a natural fact they’re committing a naturalistic fallacy.
FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 month ago
But what about the Grand Canyon?
Nevoic@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.
The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other “terrorist” organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don’t see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.