• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Correct, that doesn’t make them non sequiturs. What makes them non sequiturs is being unrelated to the topic. I choose not to engage because they’re irrelevant, not the other way around. I choose this because I don’t entertain Gish Gallop distractions, they muddy the water of productive conversations.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I was tryiig to get across that anarchists don’t “prefer” any party, if they have the alternative of not focusing on electoralism. That’s not a non-sequitur, that’s correcting a lacking representation of aiarchists.

      Anarchists usually also prefer liberal democracy over a feudal system. But stopping at that statement would also misrepresent anarchists.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Preference is relative. In a binary choice, the less bad option is preferred. This was the clear message of the comment you replied to.

        Your reply neither refuted this, nor effectively communicated the message you’re currently on. All it does is imply that anarchists benefit in some way from ignoring elections.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          As I said: just because you don’t want to engage, doesn’t mean that it’s a non-sequitur.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            As I said, it’s not a non sequitur because I’m not engaging, I’m not engaging because is a non sequitur. It’s a very simple concept.