By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 27 April 2020
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
EricHiggin said:

I could say it's obvious that you edited what I said, based on how you rearranged/reimagined it, to better support your point. Which is oddly similar to rearranging and reimagining what Trump asked and suggested. Should anyone be given the benefit of the doubt though?

Every, time, Trump get's criticized, I comment on it, and back him, without any agreement of the criticism? Which 'tactics' are acceptable, exactly?

No one? Not one? So then it must be true. The entire world is laughing at America. 'Even the hyena's, and that's saying something', said the MSM...

Who's mind am I supposed to be changing? Can't people just voice their opinion, or must there be an agenda? What's life without an agenda, right?

If someone talks to a rock for long enough, telling it truth's through logic, it'll eventually spontaneously combust...or nothing will happen. Either or.

Meh.  I'll try one more time.

Your tactic every time an act is criticized is to point to a vaguely similar act in a completely different set of circumstances.

Your response to any specific criticism is to point to a scenario with completely different circumstances where a vaguely similar action was taken.  It's as if someone is criticized someone for rape, and the response is to ask "is it wrong for a man to have sex with his wife when they're trying to conceive"?  Ignoring the obvious different in context.

Having sex is a fundamentally neutral action which depending on the situation may be appropriate or inappropriate, harmful or beneficial, smart or idiotic, criminal or non-criminal, and so on.  The details are how we determine which categories the act falls into.

Likewise, asking a question is a fundamentally neutral act.  People have provided you various reasons why asking these questions in this particular scenario was idiotic, harmful, and worthy of mockery.  Your response has essentially been to say "Well wasn't it justified to ask a question in this completely different circumstance?" 

That's false equivalency.  If your objective is to create a sound and reasonable argument, then that tactic is unacceptable.  If your goal is not to be reasonable, then your tactic is very successful.

Btw, I'm absolutely not looking for a response here, especially not one that is going to throw 20 abstract questions at me.  I'm explaining what I see as the flaw in your reasoning process.  Take the feedback or leave it.  

I put 'tactics' in single quotes for good reason, along with the other things I pointed out. I don't believe you're understanding my points in the way they are meant to be taken, which is why you may see them the way you do. Not sure if you would agree anyway if we were clearly on the same page. I also don't agree with your comparison, ironically.

Maybe the video about the incident below will be more to your liking?

Nighthawk117 said:
EricHiggin said:

If someone talks to a rock for long enough, telling it truth's through logic, it'll eventually spontaneously combust...or nothing will happen. Either or.

Dude, you are self-destructing....Just sayin.....

Damn. Which color wire was it again....

Maybe this professional litigator can save the day? What he has to say about the reaction to what Trump said is quite well spoken and interesting.

A follow up, where he's kinda ticked off that YouTube demonetized the above video because it's too honest and truthful, like most they take down.

5:00 - 10:11  Is when he get's to Trump's explanation about what was said about disinfectants.

I agree with his thoughts in both of these vids.