Logic is a sweet thing.
An "all" statement is very dangerous to make, because it puts quite a stretch on how certain you need to be of your claim (or "thought").
In this case, it's just a ludicrousps://t.co/1KjwDK6wVL
An "all" statement is very dangerous to make, because it puts quite a stretch on how certain you need to be of your claim (or "thought").
In this case, it's just a ludicrousps://t.co/1KjwDK6wVL
Fact is: many people choose not to enter the ICO hype field.
That means making choices about what you can and cannot do.
So you forego certain things.
That means making choices about what you can and cannot do.
So you forego certain things.
The above statement has another logical flaw, which is that all ICOs are equal, which is an equally ludicrous blanket statement.
Not because I've seen them, but because it's just logically a really open and unverifiable claim.
They *may* be ICOs that were bona fide and good.
Not because I've seen them, but because it's just logically a really open and unverifiable claim.
They *may* be ICOs that were bona fide and good.
Likewise, there *may* be ICOs that were bona fide and good and actually deliver.
Haven't seen too many that are on that path, but who knows?
It's just too broad to have any meaning, making the statement useless and suggestive.
Haven't seen too many that are on that path, but who knows?
It's just too broad to have any meaning, making the statement useless and suggestive.
Instead of being this vague, I'd advise to just go for "Personally, I think all ICO skeptics to be morally suspect."
Because that's what it implies.
Because that's what it implies.
