I logged into Kbin today to see 18 notifications where the same guy banned me from all of their magazines for downvoting them.
I was only subscribed to 1 of those magazines, but it's still annoying to wake up to 18 ban messages from someone who got easily angered from a downvote.
(Side note: IMO, this is why being able to see downvotes is bad. Even if anyone could see them by spinning up their own instance, that's a lot of work compared to pressing 2 buttons.)
I've blocked the guy, but is there anything that can be done to stop this from proliferating across the site?
I don’t think you understand what a strawman is.
Though you spark a good debate. Should the votes in elections be transparent for accountability sake?
@TheShadowKnows
@EnglishMobster @KairuByte an analogy isn't a strawman. He didn't say you were trivializing gun violence. He said the defense you used was faulty because it could just as readily be deployed to something more clearly harmful. It doesn't even prove the thing you are defending is bad, it just demonstrates that your argument defending it is a bad one.
@TheShadowKnows
@EnglishMobster @KairuByte
I appreciate that you're attempting to put this in formal logical terms, but I think you're a little out of your depth. Your interlocutor was simply asserting that you are discounting the validity of systemic critique. He didn't imply that you had any position whatsoever on guns. He said your argument, if applied elsewhere, would lead to absurd results.
A strawman would be saying that you denied criticizing systems is ever valuable, and it's all down to personal responsibility. That's somewhat similar to what you said, but by reframing it as an absolute rule, it would be much easier to counter.
You're somewhat struggling to formulate the syllogisms here. I'll present the interlocutor's argument more precisely.
P1. If an argument works just as well to justify doing nothing to address systemic causes of gun violence, it is a poor argument.
P2. Your argument works just as well to justify...
C. Your argument is a poor argument.
Here would be your original syllogism.
P1. A system of rules that prioritizes freedom should not be blamed for actions of people who purposely abuse that freedom.
P2. The person who responded this way to downvote was misusing free access to downvote information.
C. Kbin's system that prioritizes freedom is blameless for a user responding to downvotes.
And here's how we would apply that to gun violence
P1. A system of rules that prioritizes freedom should not be blamed for actions of people who purposely abuse that freedom.
P2. A person who commits gun violence is misusing that freedom.
C. The USA’s laws that priotize freedom is blameless for gun violence.
Apart from the fact that I was using it as an example, and explicitly stated such, sure I guess? Of course you also need to ignore the fact that I never claimed you said that, or were arguing that statement.
So, y’know, not at all a strawman. But pop off I suppose.
You going to address my question, or just (ironically) use a strawman argument with some ad hominids sprinkled on top?
You might want to re-read what my comment said. I explicitly stated “for example.” In fact, you yourself acknowledged that it was an example. If you can’t understand how that isn’t a strawman argument, I’m not really certain how this discussion can continue. Do you not know what an example is? Because at this point I’m wondering if you think it means “I bet you think this,” as it’s the only explanation that makes sense.
If you’re not willing to answer the question, I can only assume it’s because you’re understanding the parallel I’m drawing. Seeing as how you seemingly understand, I think we can safely end this… I suppose we can call it a discussion if you want.
Good day.