• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Actually, jimbob was calling me out for defending that claim. What I actually did - begging the question - is the opposite of that.

And jimbob was also calling me out for defending the instagram screenshot "evidence", which I absolutely did *not* do.
Click to expand...

I really struggle to see how your begging the question was the opposite of defending the claim.

In response to people saying that it was racist to tell the congresswomen to go back to their countries of origin, you said it wasn't racist to tell illegal immigrants to go back to their country of origin.

I pulled you up on this, which you have now acknowledged was begging hte question, but neatly sidesteps your previous implied support of the racist conspiracy theory that Omar (at least, and hey, maybe the others too) were illegal immigrants and not valid citizens.

​
I would accept that you weren't defending the blog showing the purported Instagram screenshot - except that you still are comparing secondhand reports of social media posts favourably to an eminently-believable story by CBS, where only one incidental (albeit damning) fact is unverified by other sources.

ETA: For context, this is the exchange
theprestige said:
johnny karate said:
Can someone get theprestige a screenshot of an Instagram post?



That should convince him.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is, this CBS story doesn't even have *that*. Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that CBS is not your friend.
Click to expand...

That alleged Instagram post was the one by the conspiracy theory that you are apparently not supporting, just favourably comparing its truthiness to that of CBS. Johnny Karate was referring to a very simple photoshop of that same image, demonstrating how utterly unreliable it was as evidence.



​

As you have accepted that your defence of Trumps remarks was based on a logical fallacy, do you accept that they are racist?
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
I really struggle to see how your begging the question was the opposite of defending the claim.
Click to expand...
It's literally the opposite of defending the claim.

Begging the question is exactly the fallacy of assuming a claim is true without actually bothering to establish the truth of the claim.

For example, the argument:

"It's not racist to tell Omar to go back where she came from, because she's an illegal immigrant."

Begs two questions:

It begs the question that Omar is an illegal immigrant.

And it begs the question that it's not racist to tell illegal immigrants to go back where they came from.

Neither of those claims is defended in the argument. They're both simply assumed to be true, in order to use them as support for the argument itself (that it's not racist to tell Omar to go back where she came from). By begging the question that Omar is an illegal immigrant, the argument actually sidesteps the responsibility of having to defend that claim.
 
theprestige said:
It's literally the opposite of defending the claim.

Begging the question is exactly the fallacy of assuming a claim is true without actually bothering to establish the truth of the claim.

For example, the argument:

"It's not racist to tell Omar to go back where she came from, because she's an illegal immigrant."

Begs two questions:

It begs the question that Omar is an illegal immigrant.

And it begs the question that it's not racist to tell illegal immigrants to go back where they came from.

Neither of those claims is defended in the argument. They're both simply assumed to be true, in order to use them as support for the argument itself (that it's not racist to tell Omar to go back where she came from). By begging the question that Omar is an illegal immigrant, the argument actually sidesteps the responsibility of having to defend that claim.
Click to expand...

The opposite of defending the claim would be attacking the claim. You've assumed the claim while sidestepping responsibility for defending it.
 
theprestige said:
... I was begging the question that Omar is here illegally. Which is to say, I took that claim as proven, without actually bothering to prove it. The point was not to support that claim, but to support the claim that it's not racist to tell Omar to go back home. ...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. And this pretzel backpedaling isn't helping your case.
 
theprestige said:
Potato, potato.

jimbob alleges defense of the claim. Begging the question explicitly avoids defending the claim.
Click to expand...

But you favourably compared the supposed evidence presented to support the conspiracy theory with something reported by a reputable source.

Which certainly implies a defence.

If your communication is so unclear that you really meant to say "if this utterly ridiculous mitigating factor was true, then it wouldn't be so bad" you failed miserably.
 
jimbob said:
But you favourably compared the supposed evidence presented to support the conspiracy theory with something reported by a reputable source.

Which certainly implies a defence.

If your communication is so unclear that you really meant to say "if this utterly ridiculous mitigating factor was true, then it wouldn't be so bad" you failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Implies a defense?

Up until now, you seemed pretty confident that I had actually made such a defense.

If you'd called out the implication at the time and asked me about it, instead of browbeating me for a defense I never made, we'd be having a very different conversation right now. You'd maybe understand what I was actually saying, instead of just convincing me that further discussion is probably pointless.

In the other thread I asked. This time I'm just going to tell you: We're done here.
 
theprestige said:
Begging the question explicitly avoids defending the claim.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that begging the question relieves one of the responsibility for defending the claim, or that begging the question does not include a defense of the claim?
 
theprestige said:
Implies a defense?

Up until now, you seemed pretty confident that I had actually made such a defense.

If you'd called out the implication at the time and asked me about it, instead of browbeating me for a defense I never made, we'd be having a very different conversation right now. You'd maybe understand what I was actually saying, instead of just convincing me that further discussion is probably pointless.

In the other thread I asked. This time I'm just going to tell you: We're done here.
Click to expand...

WHAT WERE YOU SAYING THEN?
 
theprestige said:
Since you're misrepresenting what I said, I'm very interested in such a debate.

I can see how you might want to avoid it, though.
Click to expand...

Nothing is being misrepresented.

You explicitly referred to Omar as an illegal immigrant:
theprestige said:
Upchurch said:
...and that's why it's okay for Trump to say racist things to Congresswomen.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's particularly racist to tell an illegal immigrant to go back to their country of origin.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like they aren't going to pursue charges against Comey:

The Justice Department's internal watchdog referred former FBI Director James Comey for prosecution over the leaking of some of his memos to the media, law enforcement sources told NBC News Thursday.

The Department of Justice, however, declined to prosecute Comey, the sources said.
Click to expand...

To most there will be no shock, but I know it would piss Trump off, and that makes me happy.
 
Paul2 said:
Do you mean that begging the question relieves one of the responsibility for defending the claim, or that begging the question does not include a defense of the claim?
Click to expand...

Does not include a defense of the claim. Jimbob's been arguing that begging the question of a claim is the same as defending the claim.
 
theprestige said:
Yup. In fact, I even begged the question that she's an illegal immigrant.

What I did not do was defend the claim that she's an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...

That is sophistry.

If I say that Trump is a traitor who is somehow compromised by Putin, my making that statement is demonstrate my support for the claim that he's compromised by Putin. If I don't provide any other evidence, then it is an unsupported claim but one I have personally supported.
 
jimbob said:
That is sophistry.

If I say that Trump is a traitor who is somehow compromised by Putin, my making that statement is demonstrate my support for the claim that he's compromised by Putin. If I don't provide any other evidence, then it is an unsupported claim but one I have personally supported.
Click to expand...

This is sophistry.

I said what I said. It means what it means. It doesn't mean what you thought I said. I didn't say what you thought I said. Get over it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom