When have you ever had a robust debate? You get abusive towards anyone that doesn't agree with you. Why can't I be a Trump supporter and not be "intellectually honest"?
I haven't gotten abusive to you throughout the conversation until that post. And this after I warned you how I was starting to view your intellectually honesty. And yes, I have. A few on here, at least for a good chunk of the OP.
This one for instance. Feel free to follow the OP back.
Thank you. And we don't need to agree. The only thing I want is an actual discussion. Without tricks, without malice and in the understanding that even things that a person considers wholly immoral still can be discussed in a civil manner.
As for being more reasonable. I don't think I'm even close to unique. The problem is 3 fold.
First, this place is typically not conducive to good faith arguments. I can't compel you to respond or even be civil. So nobody is forced to react in the way 2 people would interact face to face.
Second, this debate even in the public realm is conducted in inherently dishonest ways.
Third, the debate is so loaded it's hard to actually look for compromise.
So those of good faith have a hard time breaking through all the noise.
As for your question. Because being a Trump supporter puts you in the position to somehow justify or at least minimize what happened on Jan 6th. Something that's impossible to do without using fallacious arguments like strawmen, red herrings, false equivalencies etc. etc. All of which you have done.
It puts you in the position to try to justify actions that have caused people to plead guilty to crimes. Something that's impossible to do in an intellectual honest way. It's like being a lawyer for a client who's guilty as sin. No matter how hard you try in the end the basic facts can't be disputed.
I'll demonstrate how intellectual honesty works, and why you aren't.
You post this when I challenge your "protest" characterization of what happened on Jan 6th.
With all due respect, Forkup? Riots across a multitude of American cities raged for MONTHS and a lot more than 140 law enforcement officers were injured including some that died! So were those riots "insurrections" as well?
-It's a false equivalency because you are attempting to equate protests and riots in response to police violence to an attempt to stop the orderly transition of power in a presidential election.
-It's a red herring because you are trying to change the topic from Jan 6th to what happened in the wake of George Floyd.
-It's moving the goalposts because you changed the argument from saying it was a protest to saying it was a riot.
-It's a whataboutism. Since we weren't talking about what happened during the summer.
-It's an appeal to hypocrisy. Because you are suggesting hypocrisy by comparing the condemnation of January 6th to a (supposed) lack of condemnation for other riots.
-And it's a strawman because you try to change what I said from "not a protest" to "not a riot"
Two sentences present, yet six fallacies are evident in the response. Five explicit and one implied.
Nevertheless, this is what I respond.
in all honesty I don't know if you would characterize Jan 6th as a riot or an insurrection. I could easily defend both arguments.
This is me being polite, and instead conceding immediately and completely unprompted that using semantics in order to minimize or maximize what happened on Jan 6th happens on both side of the discussion. After which I steer the conversation from the semantics to actual what Jan 6th was meant to do.
I want you to disagree. Otherwise, I'm simply talking to myself. But over the years I've stopped pretending that I'm fooled by bad faith arguments. And when this happens over and over again during the course of a conversation, I will call you out. It's very possible you don't do it on purpose. That's why I issue the warning. If that then is ignored, I don't see the need to mince words.
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
White House stunned as Hegseth inquiry brings up illegal wiretap claims
