I am not talking about groups of interests trying to exert their influence.
What exactly are those people trying to influence, what is the endgoal, and what are the consequences of those ? Imagine you had some objective that is going to bring some nefarious consequences along, you would only reluctantly admit those, even if you were well aware of it, especially the more so if you actively despise you interlocutor.
That's about right, except for the last part - sales do matter when it comes to price of shares. Look at Cyberpunk 2077's release, for example.
I should have put more emphasis on the
solely. I'm going to try clarifying this : as a whole, and especially for the biggest product, entertainment is now longer about how much you can
sell, but about how much you can
influence. Games, movies, any form of media really have become advertisement themselves, and the stock worth is based upon that : to what extend does you product impact people. As it is now, the highest bider for such thing are western power with the current ideology. But even a quick glance at rising power (such as China) should make it clear that this is entirely negotiable. If tomorrow another ideology supplement the current one, the shift would happen rather quickly, albeit after some heavy purging of precedent activism.
It is so :
Thus, a formal fallacy is a
fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a
logical process.
This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.
A formal fallacy is contrasted with an
informal fallacy which may have a valid
logical form and yet be
unsound because one or more
premises are false. A formal fallacy; however, may have a true premise, but a false conclusion.
The meaning of fallacy have kinda diverged from his antique root, when it was a term strictly restricted for debating logic. Nowadays, people indeed tend to use as a synonymous for a false statement.
It's basically the distinction between formal and empirical evidences, and it's shame that only few people are able to tell those apart
Even if so it's more a sensible approach, in my opinion
It's an approach based on empirical evidences, which is perfectly fine for pretty much every subject that is not purely mathematics in nature. Though I would not use it when politic or ideology are concerned, as it's in human nature to obfuscate shit when such topic are brought up.