Feeding monero maxis to ChatGPT like, “what fallacy is this?”:

The fallacy in this argument is false equivalence combined with slippery slope and ad hominem.

Here’s how each applies:

	1.	False Equivalence: The speaker equates promoting custodial solutions (e.g., centralized or managed solutions for things like cryptocurrency or personal data) with promoting cigarettes to children. These are vastly different issues with different levels of risk and social impact, so comparing them as equally harmful is misleading.
	2.	Slippery Slope: The argument suggests that promoting custodial solutions leads to something extremely dangerous, without evidence that one would actually lead to the other. This assumes an inevitable, extreme outcome without justifying why that outcome is likely.
	3.	Ad Hominem: By accusing the other person of wanting to “kill children,” the argument attacks the person’s character or intentions rather than addressing the actual merits of custodial solutions. This diverts attention from the topic to focus on an emotional, personal accusation.

Overall, this argument is an emotionally charged rhetorical attack rather than a rational, evidence-based analysis.

nostr:note19ha4ekh4muzuujegaqyxu4dqfjsepw0w8nraxhcthzzajcht00psyyd056 

 Do you remember 2022 for example where Canada government force banks to freeze account of protesters ? Do you remember Mt Gox and FTX ? Do you remember The Greek Financial Crisis with impossible withdraw, do you remember Tether freezing usdt (because you don't own the erc20), exchanges freezing crypto because of AML... is it emotional or factual ? There is no merits of custodial solutions, it's something that Satoshi didn't want, it's something very dangerous yes, Bitcoin is useless if someone else own your key because you can be fucked at any moment like your money in the bank, there is absolutely no sovereignty at all here. Why did you say "without justifying why that outcome is likely" ?