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.
Right right, want to offer a more intelligent response then that? Because if we’re discussing logic then you should engage with what I said rationally. Calling me an idiot without pointing out a single error that I made is kinda weak…
Another user wasted their time trying to reason with you, and you showed yourself to be a massive fool incapable of reasoning. Since you cannot engage with anything of substance, then there is only the substanceless left to give to you - low effort dunks.
You’re a fool. And the worst type of fool, the type to think himself clever. Like Erasmus Montanus. Go play with a rattle or some other Childs toy, more suited for you.
That’s pretty much the opposite of what happened. They called my logical abilities into question so I gave them a thoroughly-reasoned explanation and all they did after that was backpedal while pretending I was somehow being arrogant for breaking down the logic to the level of detail that they were demanding.
Not to mention attempting the motte-and-bailey of subtly switching “in any way” out for “in every way,” as if I wouldn’t notice. If that’s “reasoning” to you, then whatever. You don’t seem very reasonable yourself, I might add.
Maybe if you add a few more clever insults then that will somehow change any of that? I don’t think it will though… pity…
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.
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…
Wow, you’re an idiot.
Right right, want to offer a more intelligent response then that? Because if we’re discussing logic then you should engage with what I said rationally. Calling me an idiot without pointing out a single error that I made is kinda weak…
Another user wasted their time trying to reason with you, and you showed yourself to be a massive fool incapable of reasoning. Since you cannot engage with anything of substance, then there is only the substanceless left to give to you - low effort dunks.
You’re a fool. And the worst type of fool, the type to think himself clever. Like Erasmus Montanus. Go play with a rattle or some other Childs toy, more suited for you.
That’s pretty much the opposite of what happened. They called my logical abilities into question so I gave them a thoroughly-reasoned explanation and all they did after that was backpedal while pretending I was somehow being arrogant for breaking down the logic to the level of detail that they were demanding.
Not to mention attempting the motte-and-bailey of subtly switching “in any way” out for “in every way,” as if I wouldn’t notice. If that’s “reasoning” to you, then whatever. You don’t seem very reasonable yourself, I might add.
Maybe if you add a few more clever insults then that will somehow change any of that? I don’t think it will though… pity…
You’re in the circus going ‘doesn’t anybody see that we’re surrounded by clowns?!’ … Give your nose a squeak for me and tell me what you hear
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.