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.
I do understand that and never said anything to imply otherwise. We were talking about general equivalency, not logical equivalency.
You pretty much said the exact opposite. And we absolutely were talking about logical equivalency, because you used a bad comparison to attempt a reductio ad absurdum, which implies logical equivalency because that’s what’s required for it to work as a counter-argument. Hence, I said it wasn’t a good comparison. Meaning not logically equivalent, only when I said it “like a human,” you didn’t seem to get it.
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.
…
showing off.
As if that was my intention. You asked if I understand basic logic. Was that not an invitation to break down the logic into minute, indisputable detail?
You could’ve saved us both a lot of breath if you had simply called me on my typo directly,
A typo is ahen you miss a key lile tjis.
Saying “in every way” when you meant “in any way” completely changes the meaning of a sentence, and if we’re talking about logical equivalency, then yes, that’s relevant and I’m going to call attention to it, especially if you’re trying to toss out a point I made because you don’t understand the logic behind it (while accusing me of not understanding logic!)
And now you’re code-switching and playing the innocent one, but that’s honestly just DARVO, because my point still stands that Carter was substantially different from Reagan in a way that comparing Vance to tRump does not parallel.
Or when you a place word in the wrong place, like this. Which can, indeed, change the meaning of a phrase.
“I did not in any way say they are equivalent” vs “I did not say they are in any way equivalent,” it’s two words in the wrong place. Is that really such an unreasonable mistake?
And now you’re code-switching and playing the innocent one, but that’s honestly just DARVO
DARVO, seriously? I already admitted I misspoke, and simply asked you to not when you started gloating. Pulling out terms used primarily in the context of domestic abuse is completely ridiculous.
because my point still stands that Carter was substantially different from Reagan in a way that comparing Vance to tRump does not parallel.
No, it does not.
My point was that you cannot simply dismiss any claim of “both sides are bad” (or “both sides have X quality”) as “both sides-ism,” because there are cases where both sides really are bad. The only thing that this example needs in order to be valid is for Trump and Vance to be two sides, which, as individuals who no doubt occasionally disagree, they are. Therefore, “both sides-ism” is not a valid critique.
The severity in difference between Trump and Vance does not have anything at all to do with whether my argument is valid, in fact, the very fact that that severity is less than the difference between Carter and Reagan is why it works as a reducio ad absurdum.
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.
You pretty much said the exact opposite. And we absolutely were talking about logical equivalency, because you used a bad comparison to attempt a reductio ad absurdum, which implies logical equivalency because that’s what’s required for it to work as a counter-argument. Hence, I said it wasn’t a good comparison. Meaning not logically equivalent, only when I said it “like a human,” you didn’t seem to get it.
As if that was my intention. You asked if I understand basic logic. Was that not an invitation to break down the logic into minute, indisputable detail?
A typo is ahen you miss a key lile tjis.
Saying “in every way” when you meant “in any way” completely changes the meaning of a sentence, and if we’re talking about logical equivalency, then yes, that’s relevant and I’m going to call attention to it, especially if you’re trying to toss out a point I made because you don’t understand the logic behind it (while accusing me of not understanding logic!)
And now you’re code-switching and playing the innocent one, but that’s honestly just DARVO, because my point still stands that Carter was substantially different from Reagan in a way that comparing Vance to tRump does not parallel.
… I’m… not hearing my voice as I type this…
Or when you a place word in the wrong place, like this. Which can, indeed, change the meaning of a phrase.
“I did not in any way say they are equivalent” vs “I did not say they are in any way equivalent,” it’s two words in the wrong place. Is that really such an unreasonable mistake?
DARVO, seriously? I already admitted I misspoke, and simply asked you to not when you started gloating. Pulling out terms used primarily in the context of domestic abuse is completely ridiculous.
No, it does not.
My point was that you cannot simply dismiss any claim of “both sides are bad” (or “both sides have X quality”) as “both sides-ism,” because there are cases where both sides really are bad. The only thing that this example needs in order to be valid is for Trump and Vance to be two sides, which, as individuals who no doubt occasionally disagree, they are. Therefore, “both sides-ism” is not a valid critique.
The severity in difference between Trump and Vance does not have anything at all to do with whether my argument is valid, in fact, the very fact that that severity is less than the difference between Carter and Reagan is why it works as a reducio ad absurdum.
Figure of speech, obviously.