NotAPseudonym
[Citation Needed]
“By taking action against specific topics … anything else you allow is approved. You will be forced to remove anything … others find offensive.”
This argument seems logically fallacious on two fronts.
One: Dislike of A is not like for B. If you don’t care for apples that doesn’t mean you must love oranges. Removing some posts doesn’t make the rest ‘approved’, they just aren’t bad enough to remove. It’s not a binary choice of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, there’s space for ‘meh’ inbetween.
Two: Doing A doesn’t require doing B. Taking one step doesn’t mean you need to keep walking. Not every crime is punished with life-imprisonment. They can take down posts that they deem too problematic without having to remove everything controversial. They already delete un-pony-related content but not tangentially related works.
This argument seems logically fallacious on two fronts.
One: Dislike of A is not like for B. If you don’t care for apples that doesn’t mean you must love oranges. Removing some posts doesn’t make the rest ‘approved’, they just aren’t bad enough to remove. It’s not a binary choice of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, there’s space for ‘meh’ inbetween.
Two: Doing A doesn’t require doing B. Taking one step doesn’t mean you need to keep walking. Not every crime is punished with life-imprisonment. They can take down posts that they deem too problematic without having to remove everything controversial. They already delete un-pony-related content but not tangentially related works.