LosLobo

Thank you for your prompt reply. I understand your request for specific evidence supporting my assertions. Let’s consider one of the points I made regarding the logical fallacy of “argument by assertion.” For instance, when I stated that “the cornerstone of any logical argument is the presence of evidence and reasoning,” this is supported by the foundational principles of critical thinking and debate. The evidence for this assertion lies in the vast body of academic literature on argumentation theory, which consistently emphasizes the importance of evidence in supporting claims (Govier, 2010; Tindale, 2004). Furthermore, when I mentioned the fallacy of “Begging the Question,” I referred to the practice of assuming a statement to be true without providing evidence to support it. This is a well-documented fallacy in logic textbooks and resources (Walton, 1991; Hurley, 2014). I am more than willing to provide additional sources and explanations for any other points you may question. My aim is to engage in a dialogue that is both informative and enlightening for all parties involved. If there are specific assertions from my initial post that you would like me to elaborate on, please let me know, and I will address them accordingly. Looking forward to continuing our discussion. 🙂

In your response, you’ve accused me of engaging in an “argument by assertion.” I challenge you to specify which part of my argument you found to be unsupported by evidence. This will allow us to examine the evidence together and discuss its merits in a constructive manner.

Your statement, “you’ve first committed the fallacy of argument by assertion,” ironically commits the same fallacy, as it lacks evidence or reasoning to support the claim. The cornerstone of any logical argument is the presence of evidence and reasoning. Evidence bolsters the claims made, while reasoning forges a link between the evidence and the conclusion, illustrating the validity of the claims. When alleging a logical fallacy, it’s crucial to identify the specific argument and clarify its shortcomings. Neglecting to do so results in the assertion itself being fallacious, typifying the “Begging the Question” fallacy, where the conclusion is taken for granted without proof. Further Analysis of Your Fallacies: 1. Ad Hominem (Abusive): The post begins with a personal attack (“In all obtuseness”) which is irrelevant to the argument at hand. 2. Straw Man: By accusing me of “deluding yourself” and engaging with “imaginary arguments,” you misrepresent my position to make it easier to attack. 3. False Premise: The claim that I am engaged in “amateurish chop logic” is based on a premise that has not been established as true. 4. Appeal to Ridicule: The use of terms like “laughable” and “pathetic” is an attempt to discredit the argument by mocking it, rather than addressing its substance. 5. Hasty Generalization: You make a sweeping assumption about “fake news and Dim operatives” without providing specific evidence for this broad claim. 6. Appeal to Emotion: Describing a group as “gullible elderly” is an attempt to evoke an emotional response rather than present a logical argument. 7. Red Herring: The mention of “thousands of ANF snowflakes” is an irrelevant point introduced to distract from the main argument. 8. Slippery Slope: You imply a chain of dramatic events (“clutched their pearls, and suddenly melted in a bloodbath”) without demonstrating a causal relationship between them. 9. Loaded Language: Using the term “bloodbath” is an example of loaded language intended to provoke an emotional response. 10. Tu Quoque (You Too): Accusing me of hypocrisy without addressing the original criticism is an attempt to deflect criticism by turning it back on the accuser. 11. Begging the Question: You assume what they are trying to prove by stating that the news uses metaphors to “whip up hysteria against the right” without providing proof for this claim. In conclusion, the integrity of any argument hinges on the use of sound reasoning and robust evidence. Logical fallacies not only weaken the argument but also hinder productive discourse. It is through the meticulous scrutiny of claims and the avoidance of fallacious reasoning that we can engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue. 🙂

Yes, very interesting! I would suggest O'Leary as a Canadian businessman and citizen would have little experience in US property development and law and would not qualify as an expert in this field. O'Leary is a rightwing Canadian millionaire businessman and TV personality who ran for PM and leader of the Conservative Party in 2017 on a similar platform to Trump, with some even saying that he is a Trump clone. Kevin O'Leary - Wikipedia

There seems to be a shared dynamic or bonding with Trump where supporters they take on his personal traits. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “emotional contagion” or “mirroring,” seems to be a natural part of doting relationships. Trump showed a preference for visual information or oral briefings over lengthy text documents during his presidency. Perhaps you would like me to draw you a picture instead? The oral option is definitely not on the table. Emotional Contagion | Psychology Today Trump Doesn't Read His Daily Intelligence Briefings; Prefers Big Pictures Instead (newsweek.com) Breaking with tradition, Trump skips president’s written intelligence report and relies on oral briefings - The Washington Post

Your original post claims that the media story is easily discredited, yet evidence to support this has not been presented. The responsibility to substantiate claims lies with the person who makes them, not with others to disprove them. Personal attacks are not a substitute for evidence and only detract from the validity of your argument. Enjoy the rest of the day! Burden of proof - Wikipedia

It’s intriguing to note that despite frequent criticisms of CNN as a reliable source by Maga World, it is referenced when the narrative aligns with your views. This brings to mind cognitive dissonance, a phenomenon often triggered by new information that contradicts established beliefs. The selective interpretation of information is evident in the discussion of Trump’s ‘bloodbath’ statement. CNN clearly states, ‘Trump warns of a “bloodbath” for the auto industry and country if he loses the election.’ My initial post raised concerns about the potential consequences of such ambiguous political statements and their varied interpretations. I did not demean anyone in my original post. I highlighted that ambiguous statements might be challenging for those with literacy difficulties, while others might willfully overlook the obvious, hence the proverb, ‘there are none so blind as those who will not see,’ and its definition to underscore my point about intentional ignorance. If you choose to identify with the terms ‘stupid’ and ‘brainless,’ which were your words, not mine, that is your prerogative. However, the ad hominem attack suggesting I have ‘way more issues than any Trump supporter’ lacks substantive argumentation. As a Trump supporter could you elaborate on your ‘issues’? Furthermore, the tu quoque logical fallacy ‘pot calling the kettle black’ accusation serves as a diversion rather than addressing the core points of the debate. I advocate for transparent, straightforward discussions that promote understanding, respect for differing opinions, and intellectual enrichment. Trump warns of ‘bloodbath’ for auto industry and country if he loses the election | CNN Politics

Common sense is demonstrated by logic and reasoning. Your use of these numerous illogical fallacies suggests a projection of your own shortcomings rather than a valid critique of my arguments: 1. Ad Hominem Fallacy: You resort to personal attacks, labeling me as ‘deluded’ and part of an ‘ilk’, instead of addressing the substance of my arguments. This suggests a lack of substantive counterpoints on your part. 2. Strawman Fallacy: You accuse me of supporting ‘lawfare, lies, conspiracy theories, and hoaxes’. These points were never part of my argument, indicating that you are misrepresenting my stance to make it easier to argue against. 3. False Dilemma or Dichotomy: You suggest that my only hope is for your ‘ilk’ to be defeated by common sense. This presents a false dilemma by implying there are only two options: either I agree with you or I lack common sense. This oversimplifies the situation and ignores the possibility of other valid viewpoints or solutions.

Trump's statement that if he loses the election there will be a 'bloodbath' in the country, was quite literal and clear in its meaning. Although for Maga World ambiguity was the playbook to invoke 'plausible deniability' as done for 'Proud Boys, stand back and stand by', 'very fine people on both sides, and 'to only be a dictator on day one' etc. For the literacy challenged this is understandable but for the others...'there are none so blind as those who will not see', or the most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

But I can imagine Roosevelt being pushed around in a wheelchair in 1943.

Yet, you have failed to do so.

Your argument presents the logical fallacy of a false dilemma or dichotomy, suggesting that we must choose between two lying politicians. This oversimplification negates the seriousness of Trump's actions and normalizes his unethical behavior. Trustworthiness isn’t binary and politicians, like all people, exist on a spectrum of honesty. I suggest that this type of illogical propaganda may motivate Maga World but in the real world of reasoning and critical thinking, individuals are held accountable for their words and actions.

Russia is voting at the moment, and they obviously love Tucker too. 'Nothing says “true and serious elections” like a photoshopped Tucker Carlson cutout in your local polling station'. I wonder if the Republicans' will reciprocate with a life size cutout of Putin to motivate their base in November. https://x.com/saintjavelin/status/1768580607104196900?s=20

Putin started taking Donbas in 2014 and the war continued during Trump's watch. Don't you remember flight MH17 which was shot down in 2014 by a Russian missile whilst flying over Donbas. Trump has said he could stop the Ukraine war in 24 hours, yet he had 4 years and did little towards this end.

I would prefer 'Fani Willis to recruit super' Ironman Jack Smith believer of Truth, Justice and the ... (subject to Georgia bar and jurisdiction limitations). He must be twiddling his thumbs with his finger on the trigger, now restrained by Trump's Kryptonite that is the SCOTUS majority who idly play kick-the-can down the road to deny justice for their benefactor and the people. Justice delayed is justice denied!

"The principle of ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ is foundational to the U.S. legal system, unless of course you think Trump should get special treatment. It’s important to distinguish between pre-trial detention and a verdict of guilt or innocence. Pre-trial detention is a measure based on risk assessment, not a determination of guilt. In the U.S., it is standard procedure for a criminal defendant to be arrested and potentially detained if they pose a flight risk or a threat to public safety. This is a precautionary step, devoid of any presumption of guilt. Ultimately, whether a defendant is found guilty or not is a matter for the courts to decide, following a fair trial. The initial decision to detain a defendant does not preclude the fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. 18 U.S. Code § 3142 - Release or detention of a defendant pending trial | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

A commentator on CNN just said Judge McAfee has already said not likely before election. And the NY 'Hush Money' criminal trial was originally scheduled to start on March 25, 2024. However, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a court filing that his office doesn’t oppose a 30-day delay in the start of that trial. This means the new start date for that trial would be around late April 2024. NY district attorney supports 30-day delay in Trump hush money trial (nbcnews.com)

Gym Jordan will obviously push his threat of charging Fani Willis contempt even harder now for her failing to respond to his subpoena. He doesn't seem to mind the hypocrisy of his own failure to respond to one for Jan 6th Committee hearing. Jordan threatens Fani Willis with contempt over subpoena on federal grants | The Hill

Interesting interview with Anna Sawai, star of Shogun.....

In your one sentence you have managed to squeeze in a fruit salad of logical fallacies: 1. False Equivalence: This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that two things should be treated the same because they seem similar, but in fact, the differences are significant. In this case, the situations of Biden and Trump are being compared directly without taking into account the specific details and contexts of each case. 2. Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning: This occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise of that same argument. The statement assumes that Biden was “excused for his crimes” as a fact to argue that it would be unfair if Trump is convicted. However, this premise itself is not established as a fact. 3. Ad Hominem: When an argument is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. In this case, the focus is on Biden and Trump as individuals, rather than the specific actions or legal issues at hand. Remember, a strong argument is based on logic and evidence, not on personal attacks or assumptions. 😊

Yes, it was Trump! In July 2021, Trump allegedly shared classified intelligence with an author and a publisher for an upcoming book on his presidency. Two Trump staffers without proper clearances were also in the room for the discussion. 11 revelations from the Trump classified documents indictment (nbcnews.com) Here’s a summary of the instances where former President Donald Trump allegedly mishandled classified information or possibly did so at secret meetings: 1) Kremlin Meeting: In May 2017, Trump disclosed classified information to Russian government representatives. This created political and security concerns in the U.S. and its allies. 2) Twitter Disclosures: Trump revealed classified information on his Twitter feed on two occasions. In 2017, he posted about a CIA program in Syria, and in August 2019, he posted a classified satellite photo of a site in Iran. 3) Mar-a-Lago Documents: More than 100 classified documents were retrieved from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Trump was indicted for breaking seven laws, including 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information. 4) Meeting with Australian Billionaire: Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt. 5) Helsinki Meeting with Putin: In July 2018, Trump and Putin met privately for two hours in Helsinki, Finland. The meeting was attended only by their respective interpreters. 6) White House Meeting with Lavrov: In May 2017, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak at the White House. Trump allegedly disclosed highly classified information about a planned Islamic State operation during this meeting. I suggest that this is only the tip of the iceberg. URL's: 1) & 2) Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information - Wikipedia 3) 11 revelations from the Trump classified documents indictment (nbcnews.com) 4) Donald Trump accused of sharing nuclear submarine details with Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt - ABC News 5) Still a summit secret: What happened in Helsinki between Putin and Trump? - ABC News (go.com) 6) Trump revealed intelligence secrets to Russians in Oval Office: officials (yahoo.com)

Seems facts are not your friend regardless of the number of emojis you post. Biden still holds the reins of government until 20th January. Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

I would not say 'obsessed with' but they are fawned upon more than girls. In Thailand, which is predominantly Buddhist, it is practice for men to ordain as monks at some point in their lives. This practice is seen as a rite of passage and is highly respected in Thai society. It brings merit to their families, particularly to the mother who as a female does not have access to this rite except through the son.

Seems like 'no constraints on ethical guidelines' is the rite of passage into MagaWorld. "Instead of appearing as a DOJ employee who is bound by the ethical guidelines which govern the behaviour of federal prosecutors, he will appear as a private citizen with no constraints on his testimony." Robert Hur resigns ahead of House hearing with help from 'Trumpworld figures': report - Raw Story

The best part of your posted link was : 'Assuming he doesn’t lose a step in the next 8 months, last night President Biden re-established himself as a credible alternative to former President Trump. Sharp, feisty, confident, competent, watch for the polls to move Biden’s way. He ain’t dead yet'. Gerald Rivera https://x.com/GeraldoRivera/status/1766151594230321431?s=20