FFS, once more for those in the back since people who don't understand how logic works keep pushing this dumb "point" on this board for various things:
"Successful technology was once argued against" is not evidence that "any technology that is argued against will be successful".
That should not be a hard concept to grasp, yet it seems to elude so many. A -> B does not mean B -> A. That's literally like day two of any class on formal logic, and only because the first day was spent discussing the syllabus.
"Successful technology was once argued against" is not evidence that "any technology that is argued against will be successful".
That should not be a hard concept to grasp, yet it seems to elude so many. A -> B does not mean B -> A. That's literally like day two of any class on formal logic, and only because the first day was spent discussing the syllabus.