Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Honestly impressive that you managed to miss the point so completely.
I never suggested that the differences between those two pairs was in any way similar or equivalent. The point is that the term “both sides-ism” is nonsense.
The only way it’s “disengenous” is if you don’t understand it and completely misinterpret it.
How is it relevant to the discussion if they’re not “in any way similar or equivalent”?
Do you not understand how logic works?
Imagine a conversation, like,
A: “Everyone in Al Qaida is Muslim, this guy is a Muslim, therefore, this guy is in Al Qaida.”
B: “That’s like saying all chickens have two legs, Socrates has two legs, therefore, Socretes is a chicken.”
A: “What? Socretes isn’t a chicken at all, while Al Qaida is a Muslim organization. It’s a completely different comparison, they’re not similar or equivalent.”
B: “I never said they were similar or equivalent.”
A: “Then how is it relevant to the discussion?”
The differences between Trump and Vance is not equivalent to the the differences between Reagan and Carter. The differences between Socrates and a chicken are not equivalent to the differences between Al Qaida and Islam. They don’t have to be equivalent to demonstrate that the logic is flawed.
Can’t wait for you to completely misinterpret this one too.
Yes, I do understand logic. Better than you do, apparently. Let’s break this down.
Imagine a conversation, like,
A: “Everyone in Al Qaida is Muslim, this guy is a Muslim, therefore, this guy is in Al Qaida.”
Logical formula being made here:
“If A, then B. B, therefore A.”
Error: affirming the consequent; invalid structure.
B: “That’s like saying all chickens have two legs, Socrates has two legs, therefore, Socretes is a chicken.”
"That’s like saying “If C, then D. D, therefore C.”
Correctly identifies the fallacy.
A: “What? Socretes isn’t a chicken at all, while Al Qaida is a Muslim organization. It’s a completely different comparison, they’re not similar or equivalent.”
“What? Not C, but A. {A→B, A←B} ≠ {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: makes an unjustifiably leap with no real connection, then fails to understand the parralellism between the two arguments’ (invalid) logical structures.
B: “I never said they were similar or equivalent.”
“I never said {A→B, A←B} = {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: unsound premise. You did. You implied it by using “C→D, C←D” as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of “A→B, A←B”.
A: “Then how is it relevant to the discussion?”
Again, fails to grasp the logical fallacy at play here, because you backpedaled instead of calling it “affirming the consequent” or “reductio ad absurdum,” both of which would require demonstrating that the two arguments are indeed equivalent in form.
They don’t have to be equivalent to demonstrate that the logic is flawed.
Yes, they do. If you want to offer one bad argument as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of another argument, then the the two arguments need to be logically equivalent, meaning they need to have the same logical structure and their premises need to be equally sound.
Which was not the case in our argument above. Therefore, contrasting Trump with Vance is not a valid reductio ad absurdum to contrasting Reagan with Carter.
Can’t wait for you to completely misinterpret this one too.
Can’t wait to watch that smug grin slowly fade from your face.
No, that’s incorrect. You are making a logical leap that “following the same logic” means “equivalent.” That’s not true or what I meant at all.
If by “equivalent,” you only meant “logically equivalent,” and not “equivalent in every way,” then that’s the source of the misunderstanding. The comparison with Trump and Vance is logically equivalent, it is not equivalent in every way.
When making comparisons, it is inevitable that the comparison will not be equivalent in every way, because that’s what a comparison is. It’s talking about something that’s different, but which shares certain relevant characteristics.
Can’t wait to watch that smug grin slowly fade from your face.
Can we not? I’m only clearing up a misunderstanding.
“Following the same logic” does mean “logically equivalent.” If you don’t understand that, then you don’t know what “logically equivalent” means. That’s literally what it means to be logically equivalent.
If by “equivalent,” you only meant “logically equivalent,” and not “equivalent in every way,” then that’s the source of the misunderstanding.
This is what you said:
I never suggested that the differences between those two pairs was in any way similar or equivalent. The point is that the term “both sides-ism” is nonsense.
“in any way similar or equivalent” is a completely different statement from “equivalent in every way.”
You seem to be assuming I was making an absolute statement, which I was assuredly not. All I needed to disprove “not in any way” (a negative absolute) was one counter-example: i.e., one way of equivalence.
On the contrary, “in every way” is an affirmative absolute, meaning all I need to disprove it is also one counter example (i.e., one way of non-equivalence).
None of my arguments however were absolute statements, which are harder to disprove because simple counter-examples become mere anecdotes; disproving a non-absolute statement requires addressing the logical structure first or, if it’s in valid form, the soundness of the premises. Which you didn’t do.
You made a strawman attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. I’ve broken the logic down for you clearly enough, so don’t claim I don’t understand it. Now you retreat behind a motte and bailey by saying “Oh, I just meant it’s not equivalent in every way.” Yeah, we know that, but that’s not what this argument was about.
Can we not? I’m only clearing up a misunderstanding.
Sure, act all innocent after insulting my logical ability and then predicting that I was going to misinterpret your previous comment instead of schooling you on actual formal logic.
“Following the same logic” does mean “logically equivalent.” If you don’t understand that, then you don’t know what “logically equivalent” means. That’s literally what it means to be logically equivalent.
I do understand that and never said anything to imply otherwise. We were talking about general equivalency, not logical equivalency.
“in any way similar or equivalent” is a completely different statement from “equivalent in every way.”
Fair enough, I misspoke. What I meant was that I never said that they were equivalent in every way, and that I did not, in any way, say that they are. I used “in any way” for emphasis in the same way one might use, “by any means,” and didn’t realize that it added a different meaning.
I’m not going to be impressed by you showing off your technical vocabulary, nor by your grandstanding and smugness. You can talk like a human if you’d like to continue.
You could’ve saved us both a lot of breath if you had simply called me on my typo directly, rather than showing off. But perhaps you prefer to approach it this way because you like the sound of your own voice.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Comparing “Carter & Reagan” diffs to “Trump & Vance” diffs has got to be a disingenuous argument.
You didn’t really expect me to bite that obvious bait, did you?
Honestly impressive that you managed to miss the point so completely.
I never suggested that the differences between those two pairs was in any way similar or equivalent. The point is that the term “both sides-ism” is nonsense.
Why would I want to catch a disingenuous point?
Then why did you say it? How is it relevant to the discussion if they’re not “in any way similar or equivalent”?
The only way it’s “disengenous” is if you don’t understand it and completely misinterpret it.
Do you not understand how logic works?
Imagine a conversation, like,
A: “Everyone in Al Qaida is Muslim, this guy is a Muslim, therefore, this guy is in Al Qaida.”
B: “That’s like saying all chickens have two legs, Socrates has two legs, therefore, Socretes is a chicken.”
A: “What? Socretes isn’t a chicken at all, while Al Qaida is a Muslim organization. It’s a completely different comparison, they’re not similar or equivalent.”
B: “I never said they were similar or equivalent.”
A: “Then how is it relevant to the discussion?”
The differences between Trump and Vance is not equivalent to the the differences between Reagan and Carter. The differences between Socrates and a chicken are not equivalent to the differences between Al Qaida and Islam. They don’t have to be equivalent to demonstrate that the logic is flawed.
Can’t wait for you to completely misinterpret this one too.
Yes, I do understand logic. Better than you do, apparently. Let’s break this down.
Logical formula being made here:
“If A, then B. B, therefore A.”
Error: affirming the consequent; invalid structure.
"That’s like saying “If C, then D. D, therefore C.”
Correctly identifies the fallacy.
“What? Not C, but A. {A→B, A←B} ≠ {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: makes an unjustifiably leap with no real connection, then fails to understand the parralellism between the two arguments’ (invalid) logical structures.
“I never said {A→B, A←B} = {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: unsound premise. You did. You implied it by using “C→D, C←D” as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of “A→B, A←B”.
Again, fails to grasp the logical fallacy at play here, because you backpedaled instead of calling it “affirming the consequent” or “reductio ad absurdum,” both of which would require demonstrating that the two arguments are indeed equivalent in form.
Yes, they do. If you want to offer one bad argument as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of another argument, then the the two arguments need to be logically equivalent, meaning they need to have the same logical structure and their premises need to be equally sound.
Which was not the case in our argument above. Therefore, contrasting Trump with Vance is not a valid reductio ad absurdum to contrasting Reagan with Carter.
Can’t wait to watch that smug grin slowly fade from your face.
No, that’s incorrect. You are making a logical leap that “following the same logic” means “equivalent.” That’s not true or what I meant at all.
If by “equivalent,” you only meant “logically equivalent,” and not “equivalent in every way,” then that’s the source of the misunderstanding. The comparison with Trump and Vance is logically equivalent, it is not equivalent in every way.
When making comparisons, it is inevitable that the comparison will not be equivalent in every way, because that’s what a comparison is. It’s talking about something that’s different, but which shares certain relevant characteristics.
Can we not? I’m only clearing up a misunderstanding.
“Following the same logic” does mean “logically equivalent.” If you don’t understand that, then you don’t know what “logically equivalent” means. That’s literally what it means to be logically equivalent.
This is what you said:
“in any way similar or equivalent” is a completely different statement from “equivalent in every way.”
You seem to be assuming I was making an absolute statement, which I was assuredly not. All I needed to disprove “not in any way” (a negative absolute) was one counter-example: i.e., one way of equivalence.
On the contrary, “in every way” is an affirmative absolute, meaning all I need to disprove it is also one counter example (i.e., one way of non-equivalence).
None of my arguments however were absolute statements, which are harder to disprove because simple counter-examples become mere anecdotes; disproving a non-absolute statement requires addressing the logical structure first or, if it’s in valid form, the soundness of the premises. Which you didn’t do.
You made a strawman attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. I’ve broken the logic down for you clearly enough, so don’t claim I don’t understand it. Now you retreat behind a motte and bailey by saying “Oh, I just meant it’s not equivalent in every way.” Yeah, we know that, but that’s not what this argument was about.
Sure, act all innocent after insulting my logical ability and then predicting that I was going to misinterpret your previous comment instead of schooling you on actual formal logic.
I do understand that and never said anything to imply otherwise. We were talking about general equivalency, not logical equivalency.
Fair enough, I misspoke. What I meant was that I never said that they were equivalent in every way, and that I did not, in any way, say that they are. I used “in any way” for emphasis in the same way one might use, “by any means,” and didn’t realize that it added a different meaning.
I’m not going to be impressed by you showing off your technical vocabulary, nor by your grandstanding and smugness. You can talk like a human if you’d like to continue.
You could’ve saved us both a lot of breath if you had simply called me on my typo directly, rather than showing off. But perhaps you prefer to approach it this way because you like the sound of your own voice.