Well, here we go with the same thing that got me kicked off of the Apollohoax forum (no rules infraction, just made myself unpopular with the host as I pointed out the same things as I am doing here). You are arguing with the same logical fallacies and conjecture that CT-ists use. Perhaps you are one? I don't know. Regardless, what happens when people talk about emotional topics, such as politics (depending on the individual, naturally), is they can allow themselves to use the same poor thinking and fallacies that they eschew (if they consider themselves skeptics), without either realizing, and/or acknowledging that fact.
Let's recap the recent discussion. Trebuchet made a post where conclusions were made regarding ALL modern-day Republicans, with no valid supporting evidence. I am sure it was meant more as a joke than an actual declaration of fact, so I answered somewhat light-heartedly to point out the fabrication of data.
You replied to that comment of mine with your "functional difference" question, which came with no qualifiers, so it can be assumed you are also talking about ALL modern-day Republicans. So, I replied to YOU with, "If you are saying all members of a political party do one or the other (believe or pretend to), you are doing the same conjuration of data."
Your last reply has modified the amount of Republicans to "most", with no acknowledgement of this modification, which does change the context somewhat, but you still have major logical issues within your post.
Can I read Republicans' minds and show that most of them don't believe in the Big Lie, etc.? No. But neither can you to claim otherwise. Your belief that it is fair to judge them by their action(s) without soliciting explanation(s) fails on two levels.
First of all, you have provided no evidence to show that "most" republicans have performed action(s) in step with the message disseminated in the video. Secondly, it is obviously NOT fair to judge someone on just their actions, as mitigating circumstance(s) can sometimes be a major factor in explaining those actions. Example: A person's action of stealing a fire extinguisher from inside a shop can be condoned if the purpose was to douse a fire nearby.
My whole point is Trebuchet's post was conjecture, not fact, and just as a CT uses conjecture in lieu of facts, we should be careful not to do the same. Of course, when trying to be humorous, most conventions of logic are suspended, but it wasn't clear if that was Trebuchet's intent, or not. That's why my reply to Trebuchet was, in what I felt, a somewhat ribbing manner. Your replies have been decidedly serious, so I have responded in like. I am not trying to be antagonistic, just logical.
