-->
@cristo71
I would never presume, sir.
White House issues marching orders to media outlets
Posts
Total:
451
-->
@Greyparrot
Presumption is but one of countless dishonest tactics in the sophist’s playbook.
-->
@cristo71
There is certainly no shortage of that on this site!
-->
@Greyparrot
It does help explain the high number of vacancies.
-->
@cristo71
Ah, so now you are saying I was making an argument…
No. Making an argument and stating an opinion are two different things.
after a number of posts where you insisted I wasn’t making an argument in order to weasel out of a highly literal interpretation of one of several possible definitions of an ad hominem tu quoque.
Again, you accused me of a logical fallacy. That would require you to have presented an argument to begin with, or a second option I didn’t initially consider is that a logical fallacy could have also been committed if I used a false means of making an argument of my own. It wasn’t till later in our discussion that I realized this is what you were getting at, so I pointed how if you actually read my post you would see was not the case.
Let me spell it out for you once again. This time I’ll try it differently. Here’s my initial reply with a slight addition (in italics):
In the previous administration we saw prime time cable news anchors appearing on stage with the president at his rallies, one of those anchors was known to have nightly conversations with the president discussing White House strategy.I fail to see what you’re pointing to here that we didn’t see ten fold in the previous administration which by the way you didn’t seem to have any issue with.
Notice how the insertion of “by the way” demonstrates what I just pointed out… That last line was not necessary when it came to discrediting your “argument” because that had already been done. The last half sentence where the “you too” was committed served its own purpose separate from the rest of the post. That purpose was not to discredit your “argument” or position, nor was it intended to lead to any conclusion other than what was plainly implied: that your position is the result of obvious political bias.
So yes, my quote was intended to do everything I said it was intended to do, no you didn’t make an argument in your OP, and no my initial reply was not a logical fallacy.
Not my fault you are so blinded by your preconceptions of me to listen to what I'm actually saying. It isn't sophistry, it's reality.
If my posts are as obviously invalid and pointless as you opine, I have to wonder why you are nevertheless compelled to respond to them so regularly. I can only conclude that my posts threaten your sensibilities in some way which you won’t admit. That, or you are like really, really bored…
Moreso the latter, don't flatter yourself. If there were better posts to respond to that's where i'd be. I do find this oddly amusing though, so not really that bored.
-->
@Double_R
Question asked; question ignored. Just as well, as I forget to include your favored, answer limiting question:
“Person X doing something wrong can be ignored because Person Y did a similar transgression but to a worse degree.”
Does the above constitute sound reasoning to you? YES or NO?
-->
@cristo71
No one did anything wrong
My god
-->
@Vegasgiants
Even RR would disagree with you there. No need to bring your god into it, though. I am not discussing mortal sin or anything like that.
-->
@cristo71
No crime was committed. Presidents have free speech and can send SUGGESTIONS to anyone they want.
Perfectly fine
-->
@Vegasgiants
Correct. You seem to be rebutting things I have not said. I have not recommended fines or jail time for anyone.
“Perfectly fine”? That is where we differ.
-->
@cristo71
So what? You have an opinion on what is perfectly fine just like me
But you can't deny Biden has free speech to do this
Well, sure a lot of fighting going on here.
"Your fallacy is..."
"No, your fallacy is..."
Eh, Trump is as popular as Hitler.
-->
@Vegasgiants
So what?
-->
@Greyparrot
People gonna go all Pikachu faced when people who hate Trump will vote for him anyway because of all this bullshit
Better vote for Pikachu instead.
I think we can create it as AI character.
-->
@cristo71
My point exactly
In politics if it's within the rules it's fair game
Don't like it....change the rules
-->
@Vegasgiants
Don't like it....change the rules
Well, no need to change all the rules. Just the ones that apply to you.
-->
@Vegasgiants
False dichotomy
-->
@cristo71
Prove it.
You can complain about his choice of ties too but I will also say so what to that.
-->
@cristo71
It's quite possible the WH violated the Hatch act by using their government position to influence an election by telling the press what to do.
-->
@Vegasgiants
So far, I can say “so what?” to everything you have offered, also.
-->
@cristo71
And that is the point. All you have is an opinion. You don't like what Biden is doing. So what. He has the right to do it
Don't vote for him.
The rest of the world gets this. Even most Republicans are not complaining about this
-->
@cristo71
Here is the weird thing many democrats are doing In coordination that all the liberal news outlets are covering. They are all hinting that thy want biden to swap out Kamala for another VP. These people think black women are replaceable so watch out for another VP pick for Biden. I doubt it happens but a large faction of democrats are pushing it.
-->
@Greyparrot
Perhaps. After a quick look, it looks as the the Hatch Act doesn’t really have teeth and is largely self enforced (by the POTUS).
-->
@Vegasgiants
So far, your posts make me think of the guy who takes the time to post to a thread solely in order to announce “This thread isn’t worth my time.”
Do you have anything compelling to offer?
-->
@cristo71
Yes. You don't like what Biden is doing even though it's completely legal
You think he is being a big meany. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
You no read so good. I also don’t like what CNN failed to do. This issue comprises both an error of omission by CNN and an error of commission by the Whitehouse.
They are both poopy heads, to use your style of rhetoric.
-->
@cristo71
Ooooh there's a lot you don't like.
Thank God even Republicans don't agree with you
-->
@Vegasgiants
Prove it
-->
@cristo71
Name those that agree with you
I'll hold my breath. Lol
-->
@cristo71
Person X doing something wrong can be ignored because Person Y did a similar transgression but to a worse degree.”
You have it all wrong. RR is not objecting to Trump’s conduct with FOX News hosts, he’s skeptical and dismissive of your objection to Biden’s letter because he doubts you are really concerned about how Presidents engage with the press.