Spotted in the wild: A prime example of the fallacy fallacy

The original post was in fact a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. The user implying that Bitcoin is worthy of support because no one who truly understands Bitcoin would not support it. This is of course false, as many central bankers understand Bitcoin but do not support it as it takes away their ability to control fiscal policy.


The second poster is employing the “fallacy fallacy”, implying that Bitcoin must not be worthy of support because the original poster is using a logical fallacy.

Let’s keep it going! Which logical fallacy have i employed?

16 thoughts on “Spotted in the wild: A prime example of the fallacy fallacy”

  1. Avoid Buttcoin, that subreddit is a sewer.

    It was founded in 2011 when Bitcoin was about $4 a coin. Anyone who ignored the relentless criticism and bought even $100 worth is now retired.

  2. they would rather cling to a fallacy that will impoverish them rather than swallow their ego and get a chance at sovereignty by opening up to uncensorable, unconfiscatible, decentralized and scarce digital property.

  3. Don’t read this sub, just a bunch of degenerated fools.
    Even if BTC meets a world status this idiots will still talk shit about it.
    Just because. What a sad live.

  4. At this point we should all just feel bad for them

    It’s like being at a baseball game and your team is losing 89,347 to 0 in the middle of the 4th inning and yet people around you said that you’ll still win so you totally believe them.

    Jk of course, the actual score would be millions to nothing but I had to make this comment reasonable

Comments are closed.