533
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
533 points (98.9% liked)
News
23303 readers
5826 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cool. Who are you canvassing for?
Lol, why do you people always force everything into a false dichotomy? If you have a problem with the statement, at least confront the actual argument being put forward.
Nothing they said is false, the Democrats over the last couple decades have slid further and further to the right, mostly because they care more about economic policy and decorum than protecting people's rights.
Are they better than the Republicans, of course. But that doesn't mean we can't be critical when assessing if they've met our expectations. Saying both parties need better leadership is just stating the obvious, it doesn't mean this person's urging people to not vote, or to vote for the worse party.
This country is in for some rough years if our only qualifications for leadership positions is just being better than Republicans, that bar is too low.
What dichotomy? I asked who they are canvassing for. You do know people have to canvass for a candidate in order for them to get elected, right? If you want a better candidate than what is offered, they aren't going to magic themselves into office. Campaigns take work.
I take it neither of you are canvassing for anyone and are just hoping you'll get what you want by wishing for it.
So the only people who are able to be critical of their elected officials are people who have the leisure time and the resources to work for political parties for free?
First of all, this is a strawman argument. It has nothing to do with the original claim, which you didn't ever address. Secondly, I have served as a district delegate for the DNC in my state, and you have an optimistic view of how much actual choice is actually provided to voters.
Candidates don't just say I want to be a state senator, sign me up. They go through a vetting process of the state's political party, and each DNC chapter has its own means to determine which candidates they throw their weight behind. Depending on where you are, unless you have seniority in the local chapter you don't really have a choice on who you canvas for.
I made no such claim about criticism. All I did was ask who they were canvassing for.
They all sure go to great lengths not to answer that question.
He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I'm just asking how it's a relevant question..... which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.
So your rebuttal was a complete non-sequitur? Seems you're not being very honest here.
Maybe a better approach would be to actually address the argument instead of relying on logical fallacies to silence peoples concerns.
So who are you canvassing for?
I'll take a shot from the hip, it's not the convicted felon.
I'll take a shot from the rooftop. Still not a convicted felon.
And how is that relevant to the original claim?
Someone saying that they think both parties need better leadership isn't claiming you're going to vote for a convicted felon.
The original claim was left by the side of the road, several comments ago. We are slinging mud now.
That's the whole point of strawman arguments, to distract from the original claim.
By employing the logical fallacy and defending it, you squash the very possibility of any other discourse.
Discourse? This thread is just people asking "who you wit?"
The thread started as a series of criticisms, it devolved into "who you wit?" because of a strawman argument. One that I've been pointing at the whole time.
But, it seems people like yourself are just extremely susceptible to arguments based on logical fallacy that suit your innate biases.
Of course I look for arguments that suit my biases, especially when I hear some right wing sound bites I throw them away.
What about you, have you transcended and shed your human weaknesses? Are you an entity of pure energy?
a logical fallacy isn't a valid argument....
Lol, of course. Apparently it's the only way to recognize logical fallacies on the internet. Great rebuttal though, must be the power of beige.
Good you have fun spotting logical fallacies left and right, and it's admirable you say "Come up here and let's do proper discourse" (yes I know you didn't say it, but I wish you did),
And like some professor: Class have you all read the chapters on modal logic? Please if you spot a tautology, put it in the binder.
Good day to you, I need to get back to my doom scrolling and cat video's
Yours etc. Brigadier BeigeAgenda
(Mrs).
Lol, is not pointing out the fallacy and trying to bring the conversation to the claim at hand several times not enough?
Fair, have a good one.
It wasn't a rebuttal, it was a question. One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
The problem here is you're trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
A question completely unrelated to the statement? What is the purpose of the question......ahh yes, to set up a strawman argument to distract from the original statement. That's a shitty rebuttal, but it's still a rebuttal, or at least building up to one.
You never asked me, you asked op. Also, Im not the one who thinks you have to work for the party you vote for to criticize them in a public forum. Lastly, I doubt someone as terminally online as yourself has enough time to canvass in the first place.
The problem here is that your question isn't relevant to the statement and it's only purpose is to distract from the valid criticisms withing the original claim.
The problem is that your only response has been to attempt to lull people into a debate revolving around a logical fallacy.
No, the problem is you're trying to argue with a question.
It's called circular logic and can go on endlessly with idiots
Lol, I can't answer a question for someone else. I asked the same question to you and you are unwilling to answer. Why expect anything else from op?
If you were to ask me.... I would say that I don't canvass for national elections as I live in the most conservative state in the Union, but i do get involved for state and municipal elections. As I already said, I have served a term as a district delegate.
So, now that your "question" has been fulfilled, why ask in the first place, and how is it relative to the original statement? And, who are you canvassing for?
Let me guess, the answer is going to be based on another logical fallacy?
Because they have spent months and months telling us who not to vote for without giving us any alternatives.
It may possibly be that you don't know the whole story here.
Again, the best way to confront that is by confronting the claim. Not by just insinuating that they've failed some kind of loyalty test.
In their argument they made valid points which shouldn't just be brushed aside or excused without reason. It just makes it seem as if you are ignoring the criticism to the same extent that conservatives do for trump.
There's been an alarming popularization of conflating valid and invalid criticism against politicians. Instead of Democrats rejecting the demagoguery the GOP utilizes to lead their constituents the DNC has been adopting their tactics. Which is ultimately a goal of fascist movements everywhere.
And how many people who see your argument are going to "know the whole story"? They're just going to see that criticism can be ignored if you utilize the right logical fallacy.
That's what I did.
That is not what I did.
I don't really care.
In your own words you said you didn't offer a rebuttal....
Lol, then what was the point of the question? Can you really not be honest for like a second?
Ahh, so just virtue signalling and stroking your ego. Cool.
Good luck "canvassing" with your memes....
And now you are both lying and insulting, so I think I won't reply to the rest of your post.
I hope you don't gaslight the people in your life as much as you attempt to do to people on the internet. Otherwise you're going to be a lonely and old before you know it.
But let's not pretend that you have attempted to be anything resembling honest during this engagement.
In what way am I gaslighting anyone?
Lol, my dude. Your whole argument was to perpetuate a strawman argument. Then to be dishonest about the motivation of your strawman argument, and then to accuse me of lying for pointing it out.
You don't remember the whole, I'm not making a rebuttal, I'm asking a question? And then later claiming that you confronted their claim...which would have been a rebuttal.
This whole time you've done nothing but been academically dishonest, and then you have the audacity to accuse me of lying... Pretty gaslightly to me fam. I mean you still haven't answered the question you demand from others, and haven't explained how that question is relevant.
That is another lie. I quoted the thing you initially lied about. I will quote it again:
So that's two lies.
I'm not going to address the rest of your post.
Lol, you said you didn't care about your influence teaching people to disregard criticism via logical fallacy. I think that makes your motivations selfish in nature.
Opinions you don't agree with aren't lies, your hurt feelings don't dictate what is and isn't true.
Another dishonest rebuttal.
Great, go kick rocks for all I care. Some fresh air would probably do you some good anyways.
Lie #3. You didn't give an opinion, you told me what I was doing:
I am not going to address the rest of your post.
Lol, interpreting someone's motives is a matter of opinion. I can't scientifically prove your motivations were virtue signalling and stroking your own ego, and you can't scientifically prove they weren't your motivations.
Still waiting for you to shut up..... Please, be my guest.
Lie #4. You did not "interpret," you simply told me what you decided I was doing.
Imagine if you stopped lying and just admitted you were wrong...
Lol, what do you think interpretation means?
Tell it to the man in the mirror.
Weren't you supposed to be shutting up sometime soon? Or was that another lie as well?
Lie #5. You demanded I shut up. I never said I would.
This you?
Lie #6. Suggesting not addressing your entire post is the same as saying I will shut up entirely.
This is becoming quite gaslighty, which is interesting since that's what you accused me of.
Ahh, I was hoping it was "I won't be responding to any further post". That one's on me, guess I was being optimistic.
Though it is strange that you would suddenly start saying you're ignoring certain aspects of the post, when you've been ignoring most of the argument the whole time.
Unoriginal and a liar, what a catch you are! I bet you have to beat suitors off with a stick anytime you leave your goon cave.
Ah, and now you're doing the "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing.
Also, "guess I was being optimistic" is a funny way of saying you lied.
Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.... No reason to be honest to a person who is obviously not interested in an honest conversation. This is a foreseeable conclusion when relying so heavily on arguments.
"I'm lying because you're not honest" is a very strange excuse for lying.
If someone's been dishonest with you and you explain step by step how, and they still continue with the same line of reasoning. Then they don't deserve the time it takes to make an honest response.
As I said, I'm just utilizing your line of reasoning. If you want honest answers, maybe start by being honest.
Still haven't heard who you're canvassing for, or why it's relevant to the original claim. Until you answer that, I'm just gonna keep the convo to your level of integrity.