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.
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.