Pump-and-dump schemes, fraud, ransomware, multi-level marketing, spam, incentivizing selfishness, greed, and general unethical behaviour, buying elections, quasi Nazis creating their own coins, et cetera. In my opinion, over the years the evidence has piled up tall enough to show that crypto"currencies" are an overal detriment to society.
It therefore surprised me to discover that behind the ♡ donation button on top of most Lemmy instances except for Beehaw, there is an option to donate “crypto”. This sets a bad example. Thoughts?
Russia, which is blocked from other international payment systems. Or any other authoritarian country where you might not necessarily want the government to know where you donate your money to.
We’re still throwing around fallacies like it’s 2010? Okay, I cast fallacy fallacy!
When talking about whether a donation button should have a specific payment option, it’s relevant if the alternatives it offers are better or worse. Otherwise, the argument might as well be to not have a donation option at all.
Lol
Fair enough.
Guess I’ll simply parry with fallacy fallacy fallacy—quoting from your linked Wiki: “That one can invoke the argument from fallacy against a position does not prove one’s own position either, as this would also be an argument from fallacy”.
Your latter argument for the crypto cult is that the others are problematic too, therefore it’s okay to join the cult. This invalid reasoning renders the entire conclusion void. I did not claim your conclusion is false, only that your reasoning is invalid.
There’s no expiration date on logical reasoning.