What If: Signal Was Part of the Fediverse? (signal.org)

submitted 1 year ago by mossy_capivara@midwest.social to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Anyone else wondering?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] effingjoe@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I literally was not confined to this thread, which is blatantly obvious if you know how context works.

Making up an argument no one in the discussion has made is called the "Strawman Fallacy". Why should anyone in this thread care that you talked to someone (allegedly) that was so dense that they made a bad argument that you got frustrated with?

If it’s too hard for some people to pay attention to what they’re doing and use a tool correctly

Ah, so much hyperbole. If I'm successfully stripping all of it away, is seems that your argument is that it is impossible (P=0) to accidentally send an SMS message in Signal, thinking it was a secure message. Is that really your stance? Admittedly, there was a lot of hyperbole so I might have missed the actual point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[-] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago

"muh fallacy"

I didn't know this was reddit

I might have missed the actual point.

You deliberately missed the point, and seem to think I can't tell you're being deliberately obtuse.

[-] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

A fallacy is just pointing out that your argument isn't likely to arrive at the truth. As I explained, your "I met a dumb person and so all arguments against this are dumb" stance isn't useful, even if we agree you're not just making that all up.

I asked for clarification. Is that your stance? That it's fundamentally impossible that someone could accidentally send a SMS in Signal while thinking it is secured? I'm going to assume that you don't believe it's fundamentally impossible, so that mean your real stance is that if that happens and someone gets sent to jail or worse, that's a small price to pay for your convenience of not having to *checks notes* switch between two apps.

Do you see how your lack of perspective might be leading you to make a poor argument?

[-] sarsaparilyptus@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago

Being this obnoxious is practiced and you're clearly conversing in bad faith, that's the only response you get

[-] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

What's bad faith about my argument? There's only two options: You believe what you typed and that it's impossible to make this mistake, or that you were using hyperbole, and you acknowledge that it is possible to make this mistake. These two options are both mutually exclusive and binary-- there can be no other stances. (and notably you haven't actually clarified which one you believe.)

I didn't make you choose to defend a poorly thought out stance. That's on you.