That is a fair critique. Putting it like that makes it clear that you consider it a different axis. I didn’t understand it from the previous replies.

You are so hung up on the word eurocentric, you might just use that as the entire “argument”.

I hope you are trolling, because I’m barely able to scratch enough sense out of it to approximate an argument.

Obviously loss of glasses, making him recognizable in civilian life.

edgy teenage bullshit argument

The edgy teenage atheism blues. A classic.

It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

It’s still in the current version of the TOS without a direct explanation which can be found anywhere close to it. This is plain bad from a communication stand point.

To be fair nobody asked Mozilla to serve a stupid and detached statement without contextualizing what they meant or try to achieve.

[Edit] it feels like they’re asking for the outrage. You can’t just drop assurances of not selling data without explaining if your crowd is privacy aware. You can’t take broad licenses from your users if you don’t explain for what they are for. Having plaintext comment next to the lawyer speak would have fixed all that and none of this had to be this shitty. [/Edit]

I would like to recommend the following order of presenting the argument:

I didn’t follow your advice because it relays on me not having ADHD and therefore is useless.

There are four lights! 💡💡💡💡

Best comment I read in a long time ❤️

Workers unaware of class struggle

I got milk so I’m human and must die.

Maybe I remember it wrong, been a while since I had contact with the insurance industry.

Also might depend on national insurance regulations.

I assume you’re right since you are in the sector, but I don’t know where I picked up the notion, that reinsurers would reinsure themselves.

I was quite surprised when I first learned it, there are insurance companies which specialize in selling insurance to insurance companies in case the insurances they sold have to be paid. See Reinsurance on Wikipedia for example.

Obviously Reinsurance companies might reinsure their claims to other Reinsurance companies until nobody knows who is actually paying.

Similar to packing rotting investments with other investments and selling them to retirement founds, because hey look, there are good investments in it.

Would you be so kind as to point out the straw man in that?

And no I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, I think you apply your standards selectively.

Moving the goalpost fallacy. You wrote in your comment to which I replied that no argument can be made against pointing out that someone’s arguments contains fallacies, which is not true.

I wasn’t present as you got hurt arguing on the Internet so I couldn’t anticipate that you were up against someone who’s “entire identity was based on logical fallacies” (ad hominem).

I mean don’t you prove his point, by pointing out that all governments that call themselves communist are “so called communist governments”? So they aren’t doing communism right, else they could call themselves rightfully communist.

I do share the notion that communism is an ideology or economic system that is supposed to liberate people from class war. So it should be a liberating force. Suppressing dissent, free media, and casually engaging in imperialism and ethnic cleansing is not what I’d imagine a liberating government would do.

Obviously democracies with “free markets” also have these pitfalls. Not to say that both are equally wrong, but both are surely not the implementation of its self proclaimed ideals.

Fallacy fallacy: only because it contains a fallacy (or a bunch) the argument isn’t necessarily void.

Still stacking fallacies isn’t usually a sign of a good and or valid argument.

I never met an engine.