• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    There are other things in that which are bad for you.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I would if I weren’t going to bed. Feel free to ignore me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • DragonTypeWyvern
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s pretty interesting how many walls of text you’ll write to defend an unnecessary additive but not to prove you should just drink water

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Another straw man.

            straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.

            The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[4]