Mueller Investigation pt4

[smartcooky]

/quick reminder: the rule of so states that where a post starts with the word so and purports to characterize another person's argument, the sentence invariably contains a strawman.

So, where's the strawman in this post?

 

[Belz...]

Those are not examples of the Rule of So

How about you actually address the topic?

 

[WilliamSeger]

So, I saw what you did there!

So what?

 

[Lurch]

So what?

So there!

 

[Paul2]

So there!

Sew a button.

 

[phiwum]

Those are not examples of the Rule of So, and your "point" about "equivocation" was laughably wrong.

/quick reminder: the rule of so states that where a post starts with the word so and purports to characterize another person's argument, the sentence invariably contains a strawman.

So, it's a ******** rule based on a misunderstanding. When one uses "so", they are suggesting that what follows can be inferred from the preceding. He is not "characterizing" another's argument but rather drawing a conclusion using the previous post as premises.

Of course, his conclusion may be erroneous. He may exaggerate the literal meaning of the previous post, essentially a straw man argument. But the claim that every such use "invariably contains a strawman" is ********, as is your feeble misunderstanding of the use of "so" itself.

Again, you have proved yourself immune to correction and I expect this patient explanation will do no good. I won't continue this conversation, since is not a thread aimed at teaching you basic reasoning skills.

 

[phiwum]

So, where's the strawman in this post?

Strictly speaking, that's a different use of "so". You're using it as an introductory participle [1], not as a synonym for "therefore". It is the latter that confuses TBD.

[1] Per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So, why isn't all this 'So' in a thread of it's own?

 

[Belz...]

So, it's a ******** rule based on a misunderstanding. When one uses "so", they are suggesting that what follows can be inferred from the preceding. He is not "characterizing" another's argument but rather drawing a conclusion using the previous post as premises.

Yeah, so, but it's such an easy way to dismiss facts and arguments you don't like.

 

[Andy_Ross]

trump tweets

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

 

[phiwum]

So, why isn't all this 'So' in a thread of it's own?

A fair point and I won't continue the discussion.

 

[jimbob]

Before the derail by TBD using his eccentric ideas of fallacies, including his made up ones, it's worth revisiting the post that got him riled up:

Seth Abramson thread on what Burr actually said, and how it's emphatically not "No Collusion by the Trump Campaign and Russia"

Which looks pretty reasonable given this article linked by TBD - thanks for that.

It is odd, plenty of people have made that claim, but literally none have ever backed it up. Just like you didn't there.

Seth is a charlatan, as i have explained and shown repeatedly. case in point, for some bizarre reason you have chosen to inflict upon the readers of this thread Seth's unrelentingly biased spin on an article rather than the actual honest to god article. Seth then inflicts on his innocent and bluepilled readers the grossly unfounded claim that the investigation has "shocked the Senate." That is a spectacularly idiotic opinion that is directly at odds with the actual article that he is purporting to interpret for his gullible readers.

Seth is a charlatan, gifter and deliberate and admitted prevaricator.

ladies and gentlemen here is the actual source article, you don't need Seth to chew it up and dribble it into your gaping maws like birds in a nest:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richar...e-committees-russia-investigation-2-years-on/

I hate twitter feeds, and I hated reading Seth’s feed as well, as it sounded like bombast.

Thank you for linking to the article that, once again, showed the exact opposite of your post’s argument.

The article reports what Seth, in stupid tweet form, says it does, and much more succinctly.

looks like a nothingburger - that's what these quotes, for example mean, don't they?

Burr, who is known in Senate hallways for his preference to go sockless and the two-fingered hook that often bears his jacket, has spoken little about the probe he leads. But he thinks deeply about how its conclusions should be presented. And he acknowledges now that the investigation is broader, and perhaps more consequential, than it has long been thought to be.

He made clear that the investigation is not compiling the story of one pivotal election, but of something larger, more complicated and, from a counterintelligence perspective, more nefarious. The final report may be so highly classified, he said, that a meaningful portion may not be made public at all.

ETA: That looks as though it has shocked the Senate committee

 

[Mojo]

So, why isn't all this 'So' in a thread of it's own?

Because attention must be diverted from the Mueller investigation.

 

[Belz...]

trump tweets

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

No, I'm not surprised, but not for the reason he thinks.

 

[The Big Dog]

So, where's the strawman in this post?

So, where are you purporting to characterize another person’s post?

C’mon folks, it ain’t that complex.

 

[Belz...]

So, where are you purporting to characterize another person’s post?

So, you don't have an actual contribution to make to the topic?

 

[The Big Dog]

Before the derail by TBD using his eccentric ideas of fallacies, including his made up ones, it's worth revisiting the post that got him riled up:

Which looks pretty reasonable given this article linked by TBD - thanks for that.

Hi Jimbob, and thanks for checking in! I did not create the derail, your fellow travelers did in order to ignore the comprehensive analysis I posted that demonstrated that Seth's analysis of Burr's article was blatantly frivolous, and at this point pure gaslighting. Let the big dog walk you through it again:

You said this:

"Seth Abramson thread on what Burr actually said, and how it's emphatically not "No Collusion by the Trump Campaign and Russia""

"looks pretty reasonable." Except as I have previously pointed out what Burr actually said (and not Seth's deliberately misquoting, ellipses, etc):

Burr: "If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia."

Now that not only seems emphatic, it demonstrated that Seth was totally full of malarkey.

So, any more questions?

 

[jimbob]

Hi Jimbob, and thanks for checking in! I did not create the derail, your fellow travelers did in order to ignore the comprehensive analysis I posted that demonstrated that Seth's analysis of Burr's article was blatantly frivolous, and at this point pure gaslighting. Let the big dog walk you through it again:

You said this:

"Seth Abramson thread on what Burr actually said, and how it's emphatically not "No Collusion by the Trump Campaign and Russia""

"looks pretty reasonable." Except as I have previously pointed out what Burr actually said (and not Seth's deliberately misquoting, ellipses, etc):

Burr: "If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia."

Now that not only seems emphatic, it demonstrated that Seth was totally full of malarkey.

So, any more questions?

Burr is saying that there's evidence of something more nefarious.

From the evidence in the public domain, it is still just conceivable that Trump mightn't have realised how the Russian state was orchestrating the attacks on the Democratic Party campaign.

It does require Trump to be even more of a fool than most people have given him credit for, and I doubt it, but it is still possible.

 

[The Big Dog]

Burr is saying that there's evidence of something more nefarious.

From the evidence in the public domain, it is still just conceivable that Trump mightn't have realised how the Russian state was orchestrating the attacks on the Democratic Party campaign.

It does require Trump to be even more of a fool than most people have given him credit for, and I doubt it, but it is still possible.

Going to have to go right ahead and point out that Obama was President at the time the events were occurring, AND you appear to be assuming that the nefarious evidence relates to Trump's involvement, rather than what appears to be more likely, the Steele/Fusion debacle orchestrated by the Dems.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Going to have to go right ahead and point out that Obama was President at the time the events were occurring, AND you appear to be assuming that the nefarious evidence relates to Trump, rather than what appears to be more likely, the Steele/Fusion debacle.

I bet it is neither and simply related to election security and interference generally.