Renaming it excludes it from existing legal language, like the Gulf of Mexico protection and restoration act. It SHOULD be controversial, but everywhere I look I see people joking about it as if there’s no real-world repercussions. https://www.congress.gov/search?q={“source”%3A"committee-materials"%2C"search"%3A"Gulf+of+Mexico"}

It’s just as likely as any other meat. If it was frozen and shipped beforehand, less likely, so with fast food beef you’re probably right; but the reduced chance of infection comes from actually killing bacteria present in the meat, meaning you need to hit the elimination heat threshold for e. coli and the other usual suspects throughout the cut.

This guy didn’t even consider the other dude’s post and jumped to made up pseudo-logic. This particular type of idiot is one of the worst on the internet. Their whole account is political concern trolling from a fencepost. You’re literally constantly trashing people in your comments too - usually without any examples or explanations. Truly the mark of someone who has no idea what they’re talking about, you have been attacking people for political takes across the spectrum without actually representing any ideas yourself.

If the word syllogism is too scary for you, just say so. It’s not a tough concept, you could self-educate in a week or two, but you’ve gone to being flippant about it with no substance. It’s clear you don’t have a real opinion you’ve thought through on the topic, so I have no idea what the point of this comment was.

Actually, you can present the fallacy to anyone providing an undistributed middle syllogism, since they’ve “made an argument”. In the post, an undistributed middle is identifiable - “your most hated almost dictatorship”. This is almost certainly not the same even among tankies, so the user is putting forth an argument with poor logic from the get-go. You’re not actually educated about logic except by youtube videos from people using greek or roman figures as avatars, are you?