However, neither you or I have proof of that, which is the point. Because without it, without facts, people won’t learn and make better decisions. One side can always conjecture about things, as there’s no proof. Just like there was no proof provided in the article (even though we can make assumptions, that doesn’t make it fact, and is a dangerous road to follow even if we feel morally justified in doing so).
The point which you are avoiding is that the article does a very poor job making your case (as does your arguments here). As I agree with the premise that these things were unethical and dangerous, I take offense with an article that does a disservice to the topic for the purpose of clicks. I also take offense to your string of arguments, using morality posturing, and citing cases that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, trying to point out where the US court has fouled up, to prove that MUST have done so here, which does not follow. (This is a slippery slope and composition/division fallacy, ie.. because the court screwed up in your specific cases, it MUST be guilty in the other)
> You tried to “well actually” the acts this article is talking about
> you’re linking some dumb ass article about formatting arguments in a manner that doesn’t make you seem quite as wrong
My comment has always been about the quality of the article. And the link is not an article about formatting arguments, so I have to assume you didn’t actually read or check the link.
It’s a link outlining logical fallacies and biases, to help with better critical thinking skills, both in writing, and in evaluating content that we read / listen to / debate, etc.
Here’s a Wikipedia link instead, since you posted a number of Wikipedia links.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I urge you to read through them, and note where your arguments and thinking are at fault. I do on a regular basis, and it’s helpful. The link I posted links to posters and card that can aid in remembering them.
Also worth reading, a discussion on the dangers of moral posturing in debate as discussed by Socrates.
https://qz.com/1599699/socrates-shows-why-moral-posturing-on...
And virtual signaling as discussed by Aristotle:
https://fee.org/articles/virtue-signaling-isnt-virtuous-and-...
“Human societies require people who disagree to cooperate and trust each other. They must also allow for disagreement and productive discussion of competing views. Yet, virtue signaling undermines all of this.”