• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year 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”?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      But his actions aren’t consistent with anything having to do with protecting freedom of speech. So you saying “is consistent with” is irrelevant.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year 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.