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.
However!
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?
submitted by /u/theonepercent65536
[link] [comments]
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ghx17wg166cb1.jpg){kind=link}