> Just because some of the 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers' crowd also believes censorship is a bad idea, we can't infer that everyone / a majority of people that believe censorship is a bad idea are also believing 'Covid19 is caused by 5G towers'.
I, personally, don't see how this leap in logic is implied, and it certainly wasn't intended. Thanks for the explanation, unfortunately I can't change the original post.
Hopefully it's clear that that wasn't my intent. To be a bit defensive though:
> your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G.
No, I didn't. I asked them a very pointed question that forces them to either take on a ridiculous position or to confront a flaw in their line of reasoning. I find this to be a valid strategy when discussing with people. I certainly don't believe that the person I responded to thinks 5g causes Covid. I think basically no one believes that. Hence why I thought that the question would be interpreted as I intended: that there's a difference between censoring "truth" and "untruth". This was apparently missed.
I, personally, don't see how this leap in logic is implied, and it certainly wasn't intended. Thanks for the explanation, unfortunately I can't change the original post.
Hopefully it's clear that that wasn't my intent. To be a bit defensive though:
> your reply accused them personally of believing that 'Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers'. They never even mentioned Covid19 or 5G.
No, I didn't. I asked them a very pointed question that forces them to either take on a ridiculous position or to confront a flaw in their line of reasoning. I find this to be a valid strategy when discussing with people. I certainly don't believe that the person I responded to thinks 5g causes Covid. I think basically no one believes that. Hence why I thought that the question would be interpreted as I intended: that there's a difference between censoring "truth" and "untruth". This was apparently missed.