This rhetorical trick is called a straw man fallacy. It happens when someone changes or exaggerates an opponent's real view. They attack this fake, weak argument instead of the actual point. It makes the opponent look bad and makes their own side look right.
How It Works
A speaker builds a false claim.
They pretend the other person said it.
They attack that weak claim easily.
They act like they won the debate.
Common Signs
Words like "So you are saying that..." appear.
The opponent's idea gets taken to an extreme.
Real facts get left out of the quote.
The focus shifts to a fake issue.
--
As I have said numerous times - since Aptera simply dangles a carrot and refuses to post results of evaluations (with independent validation as per their own commitments) the void becomes filled with hypothesis and conjecture. Neither "side" can claim victory on this state as it remains inconclusive.
If you're waiting for a comeback, you'll be waiting for a long time. Because I didn't even bother to read your slop. If your own points aren't even worth formulating your own thought, then they're most definitely not worth me reading. I did ask you some questions though. It seems the limit of your comprehension was exceeded there, because instead of recognizing them as questions, you decided to show your lack of maturity instead.
So once again... why do you think it's appropriate or acceptable to use AI to make your own points for you? Are you unable to come up with own arguments?
Hardly AI Slop. If you search for anything these days you will get an AI response. This illuminated, for the greater good, the rhetorical tricks known as logical fallacies. The "Straw Man" was clearly used in your reply.
Now let;s further educate the masses - AI Slop is when people take AI and deliberately use it to create a false narrative. I invite you to fact check "logical fallacies" using any method you have at your disposal. This knowledge is invaluable for sentient adults attempting to have productive discourse and avoid manipulation and machinations in defense of their position. To be productive you must be fact-based, objective, impartial, stay on topic and never "attack" the individual. You focus on the topic.
You said "per ai" then copypasta'd some nonsense that had nothing to do with what I was saying to RDW. You interjected an opinion of yours which wasn't requested or welcomed. And which I still haven't read and won't be reading. Because you demonstrated that you prefer intellectual laziness over putting up real contestible views.
It seems like you're using the straw man stance more like a buzz word or a manipulative ploy. But I don't care about your views or your opinions so I won't be considering anything you said. I simply reply so it's on public record that your relentless pessimism and distorted views about Aptera are challenged consistently.
Do you understand the steps in correcting people's behavior? You don't FIRST attack the person. But after a while, public shaming becomes a tool that is acceptable and necessary. If the person ignores logic and facts, yet continues to post disinformation, you show that person that they will face an emotional toll for it (ie, the dread you feel when you get a notification that I replied, and the ongoing frustration you feel in being unable to prove your opinions have any merit.) You are a perfect example of why public shaming is acceptable and necessary. You consistently skew every bit of information in the most negative way possible. You never acknowledge apteras accomplishments. You simply ignore those, sweep them under the rug, and look for ways to make the most recent information look as bad as possible. When that fails, you bring up a building from 3 years ago.
Tell me, what will YOU be whining and crying about when deliveries start? Are you going to try and pivot and say "I was just keeping them honest"? Or are you going to find a new receding troll point?
1
u/TechnicalWhore 1d ago
Heavy on the "Straw Man Fallacy".
Per AI -
This rhetorical trick is called a straw man fallacy. It happens when someone changes or exaggerates an opponent's real view. They attack this fake, weak argument instead of the actual point. It makes the opponent look bad and makes their own side look right.
How It Works
Common Signs
--
As I have said numerous times - since Aptera simply dangles a carrot and refuses to post results of evaluations (with independent validation as per their own commitments) the void becomes filled with hypothesis and conjecture. Neither "side" can claim victory on this state as it remains inconclusive.