Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the result is changed, too.
Pretty rich of you complaining about cluttering the thread when you have not made a single constructive comment, and just keep spamming here. You’re like a random noise generator.
I’ve consistently been making the same point while you’ve been trying to derail it with irrelevant nonsense because evidently only thing you know how to do is to try and change the subject when you’re losing the argument.
If you actually cared about your time you wouldn’t have made 50 vapid comments in this thread. And once again, every source is biased because humans have biases inherent in their world view. Saying that a source is biased is completely meaningless. All that says is that you are unable to argue against biases different from your own.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
Would you like to comment on the content of the article now?
interesting how you keep changing the subject whenever you’re losing the argument.
Winning an argument is done with facts, not with linking random wikipedia articles.
Moving the Goalposts
Linking random wikipedia articles
congratulations on identifying wikipedia articles
You and your bot are cluttering this thread with contextless stuff.
you and your pointless complaints are cluttering this thread with irrelevant whining
Pretty rich of you complaining about cluttering the thread when you have not made a single constructive comment, and just keep spamming here. You’re like a random noise generator.
I’m doing no such thing. My original reply was:
I’ve consistently been making the same point while you’ve been trying to derail it with irrelevant nonsense because evidently only thing you know how to do is to try and change the subject when you’re losing the argument.
i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.
If you actually cared about your time you wouldn’t have made 50 vapid comments in this thread. And once again, every source is biased because humans have biases inherent in their world view. Saying that a source is biased is completely meaningless. All that says is that you are unable to argue against biases different from your own.
Whataboutism
That doesn’t even apply in this context. 😂
“nuh uh!” is not an effective form of argument
It’s a good thing I’m not using it then.