4 points
This is a textbook case of ideological reasoning.
Instead of reasoning that X is true or false based on evidence that it’s true or false, one reasons that X must be false because if it were true it might encourage thinking Y, where Y is unacceptable.
Literally the definition of ideologically-motivated reasoning.
I like that we’re getting into debate and philosophy in a shitpost.
There’s this idea that valuable discourse only belongs at universities and in lofty state office. I say it’s here in the shit that we’re shaping tomorrow’s culture.
1 point
