Taking “If P then not Q” as equivalent to “If not Q then not P” is just straight up broken thinking. We shouldn’t have to preface each comment with a primer on the basics of how to think.
I know you meant well, but I don't think their interpretation implied any logical fallacy. I used a conditional statement but my statement was prescriptive, not descriptive.
The difference between "I should" and "I have to/must" is a modal one. I implied "if I have to X then I shouldn't Y". They swapped X and Y around to get "If I have to Y then I shouldn't X", which is just a plain misinterpretation. The use of what is and what ought implies a recommendation or opinion, not mutual exclusivity. For that, I would have to use the same modality "If I have to X then I must not do Y".
It's like mixing up "If I have an infectious disease, I shouldn't go outside" vs. "If I have to go outside, I shouldn't have an infectious disease". To me, they have a subtle difference. There is compromise and decision-making involved.
I'll spell it out anyway because why not. I can't be bothered to edit my original comment. While it's sensational-sounding, anyone who take issue with what I said don't take surveillance properly so I can't help them, while those that misinterpreted me like nous did can find out for themselves here.
::: spoiler spoiler
If I have to use Windows, then I can still use Tor understanding and accepting that the OS at the kernel level is a black box that logs and tracks whatever it wants. I can compromise because I might just want to read a blocked news site or Wikipedia. Likewise, if I'm stuck somewhere and I have to use Windows to use Tor then it is a compromise. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't use Tor. I'm responsible for my bad opsec should anything bad come my way.
versus
If I have to use Tor, then something is wrong with the way I'm able to access and/or spread information (I handle sensitive or illegal topics, that can harm me or others if found out), and I can't do it privately because there is surveillance involved. At the kernel level windows is a blackbox that mishandle my data and has the ability to observe everything I do. Therefore I ought to not use Windows.
:::
I'm not saying you're wrong (frankly, I'm on your side), but the majority of the general population, i.e. windows users, would take it as such. This is more to do with the failure of the various education systems more so than anything else.
Oh my God, nerds, stop arguing about absolutely nothing other than who was rught
Going on lemmy to complain about nerds
If you have to bust out explanations from IQ test questions to explain yourself, then you've failed to communicate with 98% of whoever reads your comment. You can't expect people to put in more than a modicum of effort to understand your message.
Most people understand how to think without needing to know how to formalize the process.
Taking “If P then not Q” as equivalent to “If not Q then not P” is just straight up broken thinking. We shouldn’t have to preface each comment with a primer on the basics of how to think.
I know you meant well, but I don't think their interpretation implied any logical fallacy. I used a conditional statement but my statement was prescriptive, not descriptive.
The difference between "I should" and "I have to/must" is a modal one. I implied "if I have to X then I shouldn't Y". They swapped X and Y around to get "If I have to Y then I shouldn't X", which is just a plain misinterpretation. The use of what is and what ought implies a recommendation or opinion, not mutual exclusivity. For that, I would have to use the same modality "If I have to X then I must not do Y".
It's like mixing up "If I have an infectious disease, I shouldn't go outside" vs. "If I have to go outside, I shouldn't have an infectious disease". To me, they have a subtle difference. There is compromise and decision-making involved.
I'll spell it out anyway because why not. I can't be bothered to edit my original comment. While it's sensational-sounding, anyone who take issue with what I said don't take surveillance properly so I can't help them, while those that misinterpreted me like nous did can find out for themselves here.
::: spoiler spoiler If I have to use Windows, then I can still use Tor understanding and accepting that the OS at the kernel level is a black box that logs and tracks whatever it wants. I can compromise because I might just want to read a blocked news site or Wikipedia. Likewise, if I'm stuck somewhere and I have to use Windows to use Tor then it is a compromise. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't use Tor. I'm responsible for my bad opsec should anything bad come my way.
versus
If I have to use Tor, then something is wrong with the way I'm able to access and/or spread information (I handle sensitive or illegal topics, that can harm me or others if found out), and I can't do it privately because there is surveillance involved. At the kernel level windows is a blackbox that mishandle my data and has the ability to observe everything I do. Therefore I ought to not use Windows. :::
I'm not saying you're wrong (frankly, I'm on your side), but the majority of the general population, i.e. windows users, would take it as such. This is more to do with the failure of the various education systems more so than anything else.
Oh my God, nerds, stop arguing about absolutely nothing other than who was rught
Going on lemmy to complain about nerds
If you have to bust out explanations from IQ test questions to explain yourself, then you've failed to communicate with 98% of whoever reads your comment. You can't expect people to put in more than a modicum of effort to understand your message.
Most people understand how to think without needing to know how to formalize the process.
I think this is a very lofty idealism.