I know you meant well, but I don’t think their interpretation implied any logical fallacy. I used a conditional statement but my statement was prescriptive, not descriptive.
The difference between “I should” and “I have to/must” is a modal one. I implied “if I have to X then I shouldn’t Y”. They swapped X and Y around to get “If I have to Y then I shouldn’t X”, which is just a plain misinterpretation. The use of what is and what ought implies a recommendation or opinion, not mutual exclusivity. For that, I would have to use the same modality “If I have to X then I must not do Y”.
It’s like mixing up “If I have an infectious disease, I shouldn’t go outside” vs. “If I have to go outside, I shouldn’t have an infectious disease”. To me, they have a subtle difference. There is compromise and decision-making involved.
I’ll spell it out anyway because why not. I can’t be bothered to edit my original comment. While it’s sensational-sounding, anyone who take issue with what I said don’t take surveillance properly so I can’t help them, while those that misinterpreted me like nous did can find out for themselves here.
spoilerIf I have to use Windows, then I can still use Tor understanding and accepting that the OS at the kernel level is a black box that logs and tracks whatever it wants. I can compromise because I might just want to read a blocked news site or Wikipedia. Likewise, if I’m stuck somewhere and I have to use Windows to use Tor then it is a compromise. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t use Tor. I’m responsible for my bad opsec should anything bad come my way. versusIf I have to use Tor, then something is wrong with the way I’m able to access and/or spread information (I handle sensitive or illegal topics, that can harm me or others if found out), and I can’t do it privately because there is surveillance involved. At the kernel level windows is a blackbox that mishandle my data and has the ability to observe everything I do. Therefore I ought to not use Windows.