Total posts: 1,971
-->
@Greyparrot
“Compared to what Trump and Fox did, Biden and CNN’s hiccup is unremarkable.”
“Is Biden comparable to Trump?”
“Hardly!”
“O…K… Is CNN comparable to Fox News?
“As if!”
Is it just us… or…?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Beeatch, you still here??
Usually, I would ask for proof, but… your predictable style of “argument” makes that pointless…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
My point, before I brought your personal behavior into the mix, is that it was unremarkable compared to the prior 4 years,
*sigh* This is… a tu quoque fallacy! Note: not a LITERAL “you— Cristo71 as in me” but “Biden’s opponent, Trump did it, too!”
“Biden did x. Not good.”
“So what? Trump did x, but worse.”
“Tu Quoque ("You Do it Too!"; also, Two Wrongs Make a Right): A corrupt argument from ethos, the fallacy of defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one's own bad action by pointing out that one's opponent's acts, ideology or personal character are also open to question, or are perhaps even worse than one's own. E.g., "Sure, we may have tortured prisoners and killed kids with drones, but we don't cut off heads like they do!" Or, "You can't stand there and accuse me of corruption! You guys are all into politics and you know what we have to do to get reelected!" Unusual, self-deprecating variants on this fallacy are the Ego / Nos Quoque Fallacies ("I / we do it too!"), minimizing or defending another's evil actions because I am / we are guilty of the same thing or of even worse. E.g., In response to allegations that Russian Premier Vladimir Putin is a "killer," American President Donald Trump (2/2017) told an interviewer, "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country's so innocent?" This fallacy is related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, it's not sound reasoning.
Ah, well that’s a start!
It's also not what I did
Ok. Please state in one sentence (your “great detail” may actually detract from the clarity) what you are claiming, and… AND make it consistent with your first post to the thread.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
As you said, the rabbit is killed every day here.
Debateart: where trolls and sophists flourish, and brain cells go to die…
Debateart: where trolls and sophists flourish, and brain cells go to die…
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I barely got started before I was met with rampant, faulty reasoning on why this is unremarkable. 6 pages of it. That’s right— a “nothing burger” of epic length!
Again, I will thank you not to bully me off my own thread. Or is that simply beyond your EQ?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Your opinion is noted. As it is in writing, I can refer back to it as often as I wish, too. Thanks!
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
There must be soooo many much more worthwhile threads on this site for someone of your stature. Rosie has a whole bunch! Go check ‘em out!
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Here’s an idea: why don’t you contribute to the many, many threads here which amount to something in your esteemed view? Why waste your time here?
Go on, now!
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I will not be bullied out of my own thread, thank you.
Also, you know what you can do about it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
“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.””
Indeed, it has been 6 pages about why this isn’t worth discussing. Ironic, isn’t it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I notice that you are the only poster to address the thread topic in earnest. What a forum! “The mind is a terrible thing to waste.”
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
There is a desire to give the Hatch Act more teeth, and it may even be a bipartisan effort.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It could be 10x worse, you know…
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
That's the best you can do?
Exactly what I thought you would say after asking for “just one?” See: moving the goalposts (it’s a bad faith move, fyi)
You are nothing if not predictable.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You made the initial claim, so the burden is on you to support it.
But let’s say I happen to be feeling overly charitable:
IF I provide the name of one Republican,
THEN you will [fill in the blank].
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You haven’t asked for RR’s permission to be his proxy to me, Captain. Until then, you should not be acting on his behalf on this. Maybe you can PM him your ideas instead?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Your concession is noted.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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?
Created:
-->
@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).
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
So far, I can say “so what?” to everything you have offered, also.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
False dichotomy
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It does help explain the high number of vacancies.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Presumption is but one of countless dishonest tactics in the sophist’s playbook.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You best ask for his permission before you take over for him. He might believe he can handle this by himself. I know, the arrogance of such a thought…
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Teacher’s pet!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Too bad mathematics is rooted in white supremacy…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That’s not what I argued. The position which you hold and the seriousness with which you hold that position are two different things. Pointing to hypocrisy addresses your seriousness, which is absolutely valid.
Wow, what a bunch of equivocating double talk. As it usually is with you…
So he dutifully follows without a sense of irony, which is unbelievable. That was the point made - that it’s so difficult to believe a news anchor would align themselves with a presidential administration.
Ah, so now you are saying I was making an argument… 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.
*Yawn* Your posts are more effective than Sominex. 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… as well as “a glutton for punishment.”
“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?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You should give some benefit of the doubt on this. Perhaps the 10x factor was rigorously and mathematically derived?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It’s very sweet of you to tag team in your bud’s defense like this. Do you think he needs a breather?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You: Double R rejected your argument Biden did something wrong because Trump inappropriately used the media at his rallies.
Me: So… this constitutes sound reasoning to you?
You: Eh… that’s not the point! Your misapplied fallacy is the point!
Me: https://youtu.be/HNy--_r5eW0?si=_jto_4XR8Yg3zQPX
Me: So… this constitutes sound reasoning to you?
You: Eh… that’s not the point! Your misapplied fallacy is the point!
Me: https://youtu.be/HNy--_r5eW0?si=_jto_4XR8Yg3zQPX
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is reminding me of the guy who would rhythmically pound his head against a brick wall. Someone went to him and asked, “Excuse me, but why on earth are you doing that?”
“Oh, because it feels sooo good when I stop!”
“Oh, because it feels sooo good when I stop!”
Created:
You do understand that accusing someone of hypocrisy on its own is not a logical fallacy, right?
Why, yes! Yes, I do. However, that is not what you did. Let’s go back to your Post 88 to examine yet again what I mean:
Tu quoque is Latin for “you too” which is where the name comes from. Did I engage in a “you too”? Well, kind of. I mean you can say I did even though my original post pointed out that what Trump did was ten times worse, so the idea was that your apathetic attitude towards Trump’s transgressions by comparison is bad not because he did the same thing, but rather because what he did was far worse. But whatever, for the sake of argument, sure, I engaged in a “you too”.Does that make it a logical fallacy? No, because once again… you never presented an argument to begin with and discrediting your point whatever that was was not the point. I’ve even acknowledged that there is something wrong with what the Biden WH did so why discredit something I agreed with in the first place? The point was that the only reason you think this warrants attention is because of your political bias.
The last sentence which you declare to be your whole point, says it all:
“The point was that the only reason you think this warrants attention is because of your political bias.”
You are saying that my hypocrisy on a political matter (assumed by you, true to form) illustrates my political bias. Because of that bias, my position can be ignored. Now, compare to the examples I previously listed:
“It involves rejecting someone's views because of their supposed hypocrisy. A to quoque fallacy example is: Alice advised us to exercise regularly; Alice does not exercise regularly; therefore, her recommendation must be rejected.”
“Parent: “You have to clean your room, it’s too messy.”
Child: “But your room is messy too, so why should I listen to you?”
Hannah: “I think that global warming is the most important issue of our time and everyone should acknowledge that.”
Mark: “But you drive an SUV, therefore you can’t actually believe that.”
Clearly, this:
discrediting your point whatever that was was not the point.
is a lie. It’s past time you own up to it, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What fallacy would you say it is, Captain? Red herring maybe? The tu quoque can overlap into a red herring fallacy. It’s a 2 in 1!
Created:
-->
@Double_R
But I’m the one who tap dances to avoid arguments which conflict with my views. Ok.
Yes. Yes, you are. I only need to read your meandering, “So, am I guilty of a ‘you too’? Ok, yes, sort of. But is that a fallacy? No, because of the 10x worse aspect I pulled out of the air and you have no argument blah blah blah…” Talk about weasel wording.
Since you need an argument, even though it was initially implied and you failed to pick up on it, here:
The Whitehouse memo constitutes a conflict of interests, and Oliver Darcy’s failure to push back on it in any way shows he has no problem with a conflict of interest on behalf of the Biden administration.
Now, here’s where you go: But Trump tho!
Here, again, is your first response to me:
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 you didn’t seem to have any issue with.
And here are examples of ad hominem tu quo Que’s from the web:
“It involves rejecting someone's views because of their supposed hypocrisy. A to quoque fallacy example is: Alice advised us to exercise regularly; Alice does not exercise regularly; therefore, her recommendation must be rejected.”
“Parent: “You have to clean your room, it’s too messy.”
Child: “But your room is messy too, so why should I listen to you?”
Hannah: “I think that global warming is the most important issue of our time and everyone should acknowledge that.”
Mark: “But you drive an SUV, therefore you can’t actually believe that.”
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It is absolutely not necessary to love, accept, and apologize for Biden in order to hate Trump.
Nice.
To criticize Biden is to approve of everything Trump did, apparently. As I have said, there are two types of thinking…
I just thought of another type of critical theory— Critical Trump Theory (CTT). Everything Biden does can be looked at through the lens of Trump’s presidency. Whatever fault you may find in Biden’s presidency, find a suitable comparison in Trump’s presidency which could be perceived as much worse or at least as blameworthy. It could be called BTT in slang: “But Trump tho!” Or BUTT: “But, uh, Trump tho!”
The history of this period should be taught this way in schools!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know, right? Instead of “Trump was corrupt; Biden should serve as the proper example of what our president should be!” it is “Well, Trump was corrupt, so that gives Biden some wiggle room to be almost as corrupt!” I hope that the 30% are at least aware of how cynically partisan they are. I wonder if the 30% are aware that a voter can openly dislike both Trump AND Biden?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Again, you never presented an argument for me to discredit. That’s not semantics, that’s not sophistry. It’s the most basic qualifier within your own definition of the fallacy you accused me of, which was clearly absent.
And again, you are overly focusing on a very secondary aspect of a certain (not the only existent) definition. Frankly, you are acting as though you have only just now learned about the tu quoque fallacy. Playing coy, in other words. If pressed, I could claim and show that I was implying an argument in my OP. Anyway, I will attempt to explain this a different way. Here is your first denial of your fallacy (bolding added):
Tu Quoque would have been committed if I were claiming right wing media did the same thing as your example which makes this legitimate. That’s not what I did. I pointed out how what they did during the Trump years was 10x worse and yet you seem to have no issue with it. In other words, you’re being a hypocrite. That’s not an ad hominem BTW because it’s an actual argument with a premises, logic and a conclusion that you yourself seemed to have arrived at if this is where you got that from.
In your own defense of your reasoning, you are making what amounts to an appeal to hypocrisy. If you search using the terms “appeal to hypocrisy,” you will also find references to… the tu quoque fallacy! You will also see this fine article, or I did, at least:
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When was the last time the House of Representatives opened an impeachment inquiry without a full vote of that chamber? Take all the time you need.
Other than 2019, you mean?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Oliver Darcy? Why is that “interezzting?
I don’t know if you noticed, but he also wrote the article featured in my OP. Notice that with the Trump oriented piece, his whole point was to interview and report on staffer’s disgust over an ethics line being crossed. Now, read his article which inspired this thread and notice the complete absence of any interviews at all, let alone any opinions of uneasiness. He wants to give the idea that the memo is just fine. He WANTS to carry water for the Whitehouse.
A subtle distinction, I know, but this is where your vaunted critical thinking skills should be kicking in.
Do you understand why your claim of tu quoque was incorrect now?
You have an overly narrow definition of a tu quoque here, unsurprisingly. Plus, it was not even attributed to you. Are you ever going to find your way out of this paper bag?
Do you also understand that Biden’s open letter to the media is not comparable to what happened with Trump and FOX?
I don’t recall drawing any comparisons. I do recall you and RR writhing around in whataboutisms here. Makes me think I hit a nerve or something with this topic.
I can hear the ad now: “THIS… is CNN! (Bad, but not as bad as Fox)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I did go on to write a few paragraphs in direct response to the point of your op. Any response to that?
Yes. In fact, I have ample response to just about everything you say. The problem is that when your opinions (counter opinions, really) are challenged, you resort to sophistry and, even more egregious, gaslighting. Even now, you resort to petty semantics in an effort to weasel your way out of the fallacious nature of your initial rebuttal. I have made excruciatingly clear that this is a non starter. That you remain in wonderment over why I don’t eagerly humor your shenanigans is on you.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Here’s an article you will appreciate:
It seems that staffers at Fox were also disgusted by the conflict of interest being displayed by Fox commentators. Also, check out the writer of the article— veery interezzting!
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When was the last time the Whitehouse sent out a memo to various press agencies issuing suggestions over their coverage of an issue involving the President? According to another poster, this is not at all remarkable, so it should be readily found in past administrations. Take all the time you need.
Created: