For someone who likes to think of himself as a modern Nikola Tesla, he acts much more like Edison.

But, don’t you see? His idea works in a vacuum!

Oh, you’re right, I forgot it already has an i for intelligence.

You forgot the I.

That’s the German spelling for English.

moral improves

Not sure if that was intentional, but I suppose it’s technically correct.

I’ve been using ForwardEmail, and have been happy with them so far. Their free tier only allows aliasing, but the cheapest paid tier is only $3/month, and you can use Thunderbird/K-9 as your mail client.

You can be popular without being intelligent.

Maybe impartial information more than disinformation. It’s still likely the responses from late Saturday and Sunday would have impacted the percentage by at least 1 or 2 points. The fact it stayed the same hopefully means that at best it simply prevented Biden from taking the lead.

Thanks, I had considered linking a reference, but I didn’t think he was disputing the definition. He was disputing my analysis that this was a valid example of the fallacy.

Maybe I have the wrong fallacy, or I’m just really stretching on this one.

This was my line of thinking:

• premise = there are no valid reasons to dislike X
• conclusion = people who dislike X don’t have any valid reasons

Begging the question is a logical fallacy that assumes the conclusion within the premise. If OP was not being genuine, then the faulty conclusion would be “there are no good reasons to dislike GrapheneOS, therefore why do people dislike GrapheneOS?”

It’s very close to begging the question, though. It really depends on OP’s actual intent, which is hard to determine through text. But it does seem like it could have a, “Those of you who still hate GrapheneOS, why are you wrong?” tone to it.

Edit: Reading through OP’s comments, they do sound genuine to me, I’m mostly just explaining why someone might mistake the post for begging the question.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics

Angela Collier actually goes a little more in depth in that video on why MOND is unlikely, even though she does admit it hasn’t been fully ruled out. I didn’t get the impression physicists don’t talk about it because it causes debates, which she claimed seems to happen more often on the internet. I got the impression that most physicists just think it is unlikely to go anywhere, so they just aren’t as interested in it.