• intensely_human@lemm.ee
      13·
      2 years ago

      Well what I said was:

      • Musk claimed to be working to protect free speech
      • Musk’s actions are consistent with that goal
      • If fighting Meta isn’t consistent with that goal, then why are we fighting Meta?
        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          1·
          2 years ago

          Did you notice the phrase “is consistent with”?

          How do you suppose that differs in meaning from a phrase like “allows us to conclude that”?

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              1·
              2 years ago

              Premise 1: Fighting the enemy of a person, group, or thing can be a way of protecting that person, group, or thing.

              Premise 2: Meta is an enemy of free speech.

              Conclusion 1: Fighting Meta can be a way to protect free speech. ( P1 + P2 => C1 )

              Premise 3: When a specific action can be used as a way of creating a specific outcome, we can say that that action is consistent with having the goal of creating that outcome.

              Conclusion 2: Fighting Meta is consistent with having the goal of protecting free speech. ( C1 + P3 => C2 )

              Premise 4: Initiating a lawsuit against X is a way of fighting X.

              Conclusion 3: Anyone engaged in a lawsuit with Meta is undertaking actions consistent with having the goal o protecting free speech. ( C2 + P4 => C3 )

              Premise 5: Elon Musk is engaged in a lawsuit with Meta.

              Conclusion 4: Elon Musk is behaving in a way consistent with having the goal of protecting free speech. ( C3 + P5 => C4 )

              QED

              Now, I you can take this argument down by knocking out any of the premises. It relies on all five premises. You can also disagree with the logical conclusions.

              I would be curious to know what you think is the weakest of those premises.