sundin13 said:
I find this post interesting. JWeinCom states that Trump has contributed to the damage done by coronavirus through his downplaying of masks. In response, you immediately start talking about China (irrelevant), whether he could have really kept it out of America (also irrelevant), whether he could have halved the deaths (also irrelevant) and other irrelevant ponderings. It is interesting that you would respond to such a specific allegation with so many irrelevant hypotheticals which even you acknowledge have no answer. Then, when you get to masks, you ask some rather bizarre questions. Exactly what are you getting at when you say "what about his supporters who do wear masks"? I agree. What about them? Same with your last question. Why are people wearing masks who still spread the disease relevant, unless you are insisting that masks don't make people safer? If you are making that point, why broach it in the form of an untargeted hypothetical instead of as an argument? Why do these questions matter here? If we look at the data on mask wearing, we see a strong and consistent partisan divide. I think you would be fooling yourself if you didn't believe that Trump in some way has contributed to this phenomenon. As such, there should be no real question about whether Trump's continued downplaying masks contributed to some amount of suffering and death among the American people. This post feels like smoke screening to me. Just throwing out as many untargeted points as you can, distracting those you are speaking with from the real point, without ever really engaging with what the person you are responding to said. |
I suppose what you are looking for is called "red herring fallacy".
Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3