• Black AOC@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Then demonstrate it, with evidence, not with third-party opinion columns. Or are you just going off your feelings about WSJ to back up your hot air?

    • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Moving the Goalposts

      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.

        • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          of course they’re from wikipedia-- I even link there. it’s no secret, nor are you some great detective for pointing that out, lmao

          and, obviously, I’m not going to engage in an argument that’s fallacious, giving it legitimacy. what’s amusing is that you - or anyone - takes offense to this.

          do better.

            • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “I know you are but what am I” is not an effective form of debate. nor is:

              Ad hominem

              Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.

      • Black AOC@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Y’know, your insufferability, and your willful ignorance-- it reminds me of a certain DNC-paid twitter shill. BrooklynDadDefiant, is that you? I don’t acknowledge wikipedia link-dumping. Show the cold, hard, evidence of what you speak, or for the love of whatever settler-colonial god you worship, quit inconveniencing the electrons.

        Or y’know what, don’t. I’m not wasting my time ‘debating’ some redditor pissant.