On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 06:18 +0500, Anonymous wrote: > Your use of the word "apply" here is equivocal (a logical fallacy).
On Fri, 2017-03-03 at 19:06 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote: > We've seen heavy use of logical fallacy from you (false > analogy, position statements with no attempt at supporting them, straw > men without quotes, emotional appeals), On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 07:06 -0500, Anonymous wrote: > It's actually a fallacy (the false analogy variety), On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 19:01 +0000, Anonymous wrote: > Everytime you simply restate it you use the fallacy of repetition. On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 02:16 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote: > This is a /begging the question/ fallacy. On Sat, 2017-03-11 at 15:37 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote: > More precisely, you've just used a fallacy of composition. > Your appeal to authority fallacy has been called out. It appears you've fallen victim to the Wikipedia University fallacy (aka the Strawman Around Every Corner fallacy): you've given memorization of the Wikipedia List of Logical Fallacies more priority than active thought and reflection, causing you to assume that a position must be wrong if it was supported with a logical fallacy. Many active members of GNU have explained the definition of freedom 0 as it concerns GNU the organization. If you want to have some other fanciful definition of it, that is fine, but you will not successfully debate your way into a redefinition of it by GNU or the FSF. -brandon
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
