• PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Would any other realistic US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis?

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Thinking that Cornel West is a serious candidate or has anything vaguely resembling a chance at the presidency is nothing short of delusional.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          calling me delusional is a personal attack. it’s inappropriate in this community. if you have a rebuttal to I have to say you can articulate it in the context of the validity of ideas.

          • PugJesus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            If someone says that switching to the gold standard is viable, that’s delusional, and should be called out as such.

            If someone says that an independent without an independent support base and no established political experience who has jumped several parties already has a serious chance at the presidency, that’s delusional, and should be called out as such.

            Being offended doesn’t change that.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              this is just a defense of your personal attack, which is still inappropriate. if you can’t engage with the material, use the vote buttons and move along.

              • PugJesus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                You have fun playing tone police over an objection to a candidate not having a realistic chance.

                  • PugJesus@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    If you legitimately think that and aren’t just trying to worm out of taking responsibility for your own offended schtick, then report me. But I’m pretty sure saying a position is delusional is not a violation of the community rules.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Tell me how this isn’t begging the question.

        … because begging the question is a form of circular logic rather than an assertion that a contrary position would be disqualifying to one’s chances, realistically speaking?

        … do you know what begging the question is?

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          “No other realistic candidate has a contrary view on this issue” -> “Their contrary views disqualify them as a realistic candidate”

          Seems pretty circular to me.

          • PugJesus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            “No other realistic candidate has a contrary view on this issue” -> “Their contrary views disqualify them as a realistic candidate”

            Seems pretty circular to me.

            That’s not circular logic, and thinking it is reflects a serious lack of understanding of what circular logic is supposed to describe and criticize.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Buddy, you’ve assumed ‘a lack of contrary views’ in your definition of ‘realistic candidate’ in the assertion ‘no other realistic candidate has a contrary view’. That is the very definition of circular.

              Doesn’t matter if you think it’s a true statement regardless, it doesn’t make it any less circular.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Just gonna chime in late to say that I don’t think it’s circular. They did not define a “realistic candidate” as necessarily someone without a contrary view, just that it is a trait shared by all “realistic candidates” that are currently running. At no point did they say it was a necessary trait of all “realistic candidates.”

                It’s kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. Just because all of the current “realistic candidates” share that one opinion, it does not logically follow that they need to share the opinion in order to be a “realistic candidate.”

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Except pugjesus did describe ‘realistic candidate’ as one with no contrary views:

                  No realistic candidate has contrary views.

                  Therefore

                  There are no realistic candidates with contrary views.

                  Regardless, begging the question doesn’t necessarily need to be circular, just that the speaker assumes some premise that hasn’t been proven to be true. Namely that candidates with a different view on Israel are not “realistic”, either because of that view or because they are not the ‘presumptive’ nominee (and are therefore not realistic). In either case, the framing of the question was completely disingenuous.

              • PugJesus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                No realistic candidate has contrary views.

                Therefore

                There are no realistic candidates with contrary views.

                Is that really too complex for you to understand? Jesus Christ.

              • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Go take a logics class you irate troll.

                Circular logic is using facts of a presumed conclusion to support the conclusion (for example “if I’m right then X is true and because of X I’m right” without actually addressing the argument for/against X).

                Your ridiculous nonsense is a strawman argument where you’re pretending your opponent will use non sequiturs, instead of actually addressing their real argument, and likewise you’re assuming your opponent will be wrong before they have presented the full argument (and furthermore you have made zero attempt at proving otherwise by not presenting any other candidate with better policies)

                “two things are correlated” is simply not the definition of circular.

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You mean like,

                  “No other realistic candidate would handle this differently than X: because proposed Y candidate would handle this differently they are not a realistic candidate”?

                  Pointing out PugJesus’s ridiculous qualifier to the question is the only reasonable response, because literally any candidate proposed could be considered unrealistic on the basis of their contrary position to the question at hand. It isn’t worthy of engagement because they have already assumed the conclusion in the question as posed.

                  It wouldn’t even be a straw man YOU COCKEYED SALAMI, it would at most be a “fallacy fallacy”, since rather than attacking a false representation of their argument, I dismissed the conclusion on the basis of his fallacious reasoning.

                  But even then, YOU IRRIDESCENT PORCUPINE, I haven’t argued on behalf of the realism of Cornell West’s candidacy, I’ve only pointed out that PugJesus’s qualification of “realistic” is intentionally open-ended and clearly in bad faith. There are many potential candidates that have said they would handle this issue differently, but presumably none would be “realistic” because PugJesus considers Bidens response the only reasonable one.

                  Go self-flagellate yourself with a dictionary, you pompous leprechaun

                  • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    But that’s a strawman because that’s your argument and not theirs. As much as you think you attacked their real argument you simply did not.

                    Since you specifically chose to only attack the choice of words but not actually address the argument by not trying to present another “realistic option” or alternatively ask what they mean by it, you have no grounds for claiming that your attack is valid.