ā¦ because begging the question is a form of circular logic rather than an assertion that a contrary position would be disqualifying to oneās chances, realistically speaking?
Buddy, youāve assumed āa lack of contrary viewsā in your definition of ārealistic candidateā in the assertion āno other realistic candidate has a contrary viewā. That is the very definition of circular.
Doesnāt matter if you think itās a true statement regardless, it doesnāt make it any less circular.
Just gonna chime in late to say that I donāt think itās circular. They did not define a ārealistic candidateā as necessarily someone without a contrary view, just that it is a trait shared by all ārealistic candidatesā that are currently running. At no point did they say it was a necessary trait of all ārealistic candidates.ā
Itās kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. Just because all of the current ārealistic candidatesā share that one opinion, it does not logically follow that they need to share the opinion in order to be a ārealistic candidate.ā
Except pugjesus did describe ārealistic candidateā as one with no contrary views:
No realistic candidate has contrary views.
Therefore
There are no realistic candidates with contrary views.
Regardless, begging the question doesnāt necessarily need to be circular, just that the speaker assumes some premise that hasnāt been proven to be true. Namely that candidates with a different view on Israel are not ārealisticā, either because of that view or because they are not the āpresumptiveā nominee (and are therefore not realistic). In either case, the framing of the question was completely disingenuous.
Circular logic is using facts of a presumed conclusion to support the conclusion (for example āif Iām right then X is true and because of X Iām rightā without actually addressing the argument for/against X).
Your ridiculous nonsense is a strawman argument where youāre pretending your opponent will use non sequiturs, instead of actually addressing their real argument, and likewise youāre assuming your opponent will be wrong before they have presented the full argument (and furthermore you have made zero attempt at proving otherwise by not presenting any other candidate with better policies)
ātwo things are correlatedā is simply not the definition of circular.
āNo other realistic candidate would handle this differently than X: because proposed Y candidate would handle this differently they are not a realistic candidateā?
Pointing out PugJesusās ridiculous qualifier to the question is the only reasonable response, because literally any candidate proposed could be considered unrealistic on the basis of their contrary position to the question at hand. It isnāt worthy of engagement because they have already assumed the conclusion in the question as posed.
It wouldnāt even be a straw man YOU COCKEYED SALAMI, it would at most be a āfallacy fallacyā, since rather than attacking a false representation of their argument, I dismissed the conclusion on the basis of his fallacious reasoning.
But even then, YOU IRRIDESCENT PORCUPINE, I havenāt argued on behalf of the realism of Cornell Westās candidacy, Iāve only pointed out that PugJesusās qualification of ārealisticā is intentionally open-ended and clearly in bad faith. There are many potential candidates that have said they would handle this issue differently, but presumably none would be ārealisticā because PugJesus considers Bidens response the only reasonable one.
Go self-flagellate yourself with a dictionary, you pompous leprechaun
But thatās a strawman because thatās your argument and not theirs. As much as you think you attacked their real argument you simply did not.
Since you specifically chose to only attack the choice of words but not actually address the argument by not trying to present another ārealistic optionā or alternatively ask what they mean by it, you have no grounds for claiming that your attack is valid.
you specifically chose to only attack the choice of words
you think you attacked their real argument you simply did not
Lol, lmao even. In your own words, āgo take a logics[sic] class you irate trollā.
Silly me for addressing the argument as they presented it and not as they were thinking it. But just to humor you:
1 - pugjesus (PJ): āthese dumbasses arenāt interested in a realistic examination of Bidenās policies. Theyāre just salivating at the thought of another Trump presidencyā -> implying criticisms of his handling of Israel arenāt ārealisticā, presumably because we need to support his decisions since he is the incumbent running against a fascist
2 - me: āyou will have biden and you will like itā -> obvious facetious joke about PJ dismissing critique of Biden as pointless because we must vote for him or else, ignoring all other reasons it would be beneficial to be critical of Bidenās policies despite him being the presumptive nominee
3 - PJ: āWould any other US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis? No.ā -> A second attempt to reduce policy debate to electoral calculus, in addition to defending Biden from criticism by implying his response to the conflict is the only reasonable one since there are (allegedly) no challengers who would respond differently. (here is where PJās argument starts taking on fallacious reasoning. They are arguing from Ignorance: since an alternative response hasnāt been taken by a challenger candidate, then it must not be āreasonableā. He isnāt defending the policy directly, but rather defending it on the basis that an alternative hasnāt been provided that meets some abstract criteria of āreasonableā)
4 - commie: ācornel west has been outspoken about having a different political stance on this.ā -> a valid response to PJās assertion that āthere are no other candidates that would react differentlyā, since West is a presidential candidate that has said they would act differently from Biden.
5 - PJ: āWould any other realistic US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis?ā -> adding the undefined and abstract qualifier ārealisticā to the challenge and assuming the conclusion from the third argument (no alternatives have been proven, therefore Bidenās response must be the only reasonable one). He is assuming the conclusion āBidenās is the only reasonable approachā, so someone (like West) who has a different one would not be reasonable (that is not me miss-interpreting their argument, they say exactly as much in their next comment āa contrary position would be disqualifying to oneās chances, realistically speakingā
The underlying thrust of PJās argument is that Biden must be defended, because criticizing him publicly hurts his chances against Trump. I donāt think I need argue the case for targeted critique, even self-critique from within progressive political groups. People like PugJesus (and yourself, I assume) who insist on unity at the expense of targeted critique of policy are the reason we continue to support US imperialistic activities despite a growing progressive base, and the reason why fascist movements have been given room to flourish because weāre incapable of enacting progressive policies that improve the material conditions of the working class because we drop them at the slightest threat of loosing moderate āsupportā. We cry about how the two-party system acts to serve capital, but then suppress critical discussion when it inevitably produces another false-choice as if thatās not exactly how two-party systems function.
If youād like to argue the case on pugjesusās behalf, be my guest, but donāt accuse me of strawmaning their position when they are incapable of articulating it without fallacious reasoning themselves.
Tell me how this isnāt begging the question.
ā¦ because begging the question is a form of circular logic rather than an assertion that a contrary position would be disqualifying to oneās chances, realistically speaking?
ā¦ do you know what begging the question is?
āNo other realistic candidate has a contrary view on this issueā -> āTheir contrary views disqualify them as a realistic candidateā
Seems pretty circular to me.
Strawman, and that is in fact not what circular logic is.
Thatās not circular logic, and thinking it is reflects a serious lack of understanding of what circular logic is supposed to describe and criticize.
Buddy, youāve assumed āa lack of contrary viewsā in your definition of ārealistic candidateā in the assertion āno other realistic candidate has a contrary viewā. That is the very definition of circular.
Doesnāt matter if you think itās a true statement regardless, it doesnāt make it any less circular.
Just gonna chime in late to say that I donāt think itās circular. They did not define a ārealistic candidateā as necessarily someone without a contrary view, just that it is a trait shared by all ārealistic candidatesā that are currently running. At no point did they say it was a necessary trait of all ārealistic candidates.ā
Itās kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. Just because all of the current ārealistic candidatesā share that one opinion, it does not logically follow that they need to share the opinion in order to be a ārealistic candidate.ā
Except pugjesus did describe ārealistic candidateā as one with no contrary views:
Regardless, begging the question doesnāt necessarily need to be circular, just that the speaker assumes some premise that hasnāt been proven to be true. Namely that candidates with a different view on Israel are not ārealisticā, either because of that view or because they are not the āpresumptiveā nominee (and are therefore not realistic). In either case, the framing of the question was completely disingenuous.
Go take a logics class you irate troll.
Circular logic is using facts of a presumed conclusion to support the conclusion (for example āif Iām right then X is true and because of X Iām rightā without actually addressing the argument for/against X).
Your ridiculous nonsense is a strawman argument where youāre pretending your opponent will use non sequiturs, instead of actually addressing their real argument, and likewise youāre assuming your opponent will be wrong before they have presented the full argument (and furthermore you have made zero attempt at proving otherwise by not presenting any other candidate with better policies)
ātwo things are correlatedā is simply not the definition of circular.
You mean like,
āNo other realistic candidate would handle this differently than X: because proposed Y candidate would handle this differently they are not a realistic candidateā?
Pointing out PugJesusās ridiculous qualifier to the question is the only reasonable response, because literally any candidate proposed could be considered unrealistic on the basis of their contrary position to the question at hand. It isnāt worthy of engagement because they have already assumed the conclusion in the question as posed.
It wouldnāt even be a straw man YOU COCKEYED SALAMI, it would at most be a āfallacy fallacyā, since rather than attacking a false representation of their argument, I dismissed the conclusion on the basis of his fallacious reasoning.
But even then, YOU IRRIDESCENT PORCUPINE, I havenāt argued on behalf of the realism of Cornell Westās candidacy, Iāve only pointed out that PugJesusās qualification of ārealisticā is intentionally open-ended and clearly in bad faith. There are many potential candidates that have said they would handle this issue differently, but presumably none would be ārealisticā because PugJesus considers Bidens response the only reasonable one.
Go self-flagellate yourself with a dictionary, you pompous leprechaun
But thatās a strawman because thatās your argument and not theirs. As much as you think you attacked their real argument you simply did not.
Since you specifically chose to only attack the choice of words but not actually address the argument by not trying to present another ārealistic optionā or alternatively ask what they mean by it, you have no grounds for claiming that your attack is valid.
deleted
Lol, lmao even. In your own words, āgo take a logics[sic] class you irate trollā.
Silly me for addressing the argument as they presented it and not as they were thinking it. But just to humor you:
1 - pugjesus (PJ): āthese dumbasses arenāt interested in a realistic examination of Bidenās policies. Theyāre just salivating at the thought of another Trump presidencyā -> implying criticisms of his handling of Israel arenāt ārealisticā, presumably because we need to support his decisions since he is the incumbent running against a fascist
2 - me: āyou will have biden and you will like itā -> obvious facetious joke about PJ dismissing critique of Biden as pointless because we must vote for him or else, ignoring all other reasons it would be beneficial to be critical of Bidenās policies despite him being the presumptive nominee
3 - PJ: āWould any other US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis? No.ā -> A second attempt to reduce policy debate to electoral calculus, in addition to defending Biden from criticism by implying his response to the conflict is the only reasonable one since there are (allegedly) no challengers who would respond differently. (here is where PJās argument starts taking on fallacious reasoning. They are arguing from Ignorance: since an alternative response hasnāt been taken by a challenger candidate, then it must not be āreasonableā. He isnāt defending the policy directly, but rather defending it on the basis that an alternative hasnāt been provided that meets some abstract criteria of āreasonableā)
4 - commie: ācornel west has been outspoken about having a different political stance on this.ā -> a valid response to PJās assertion that āthere are no other candidates that would react differentlyā, since West is a presidential candidate that has said they would act differently from Biden.
5 - PJ: āWould any other realistic US presidential candidate react substantially differently to this crisis?ā -> adding the undefined and abstract qualifier ārealisticā to the challenge and assuming the conclusion from the third argument (no alternatives have been proven, therefore Bidenās response must be the only reasonable one). He is assuming the conclusion āBidenās is the only reasonable approachā, so someone (like West) who has a different one would not be reasonable (that is not me miss-interpreting their argument, they say exactly as much in their next comment āa contrary position would be disqualifying to oneās chances, realistically speakingā
The underlying thrust of PJās argument is that Biden must be defended, because criticizing him publicly hurts his chances against Trump. I donāt think I need argue the case for targeted critique, even self-critique from within progressive political groups. People like PugJesus (and yourself, I assume) who insist on unity at the expense of targeted critique of policy are the reason we continue to support US imperialistic activities despite a growing progressive base, and the reason why fascist movements have been given room to flourish because weāre incapable of enacting progressive policies that improve the material conditions of the working class because we drop them at the slightest threat of loosing moderate āsupportā. We cry about how the two-party system acts to serve capital, but then suppress critical discussion when it inevitably produces another false-choice as if thatās not exactly how two-party systems function.
If youād like to argue the case on pugjesusās behalf, be my guest, but donāt accuse me of strawmaning their position when they are incapable of articulating it without fallacious reasoning themselves.
No realistic candidate has contrary views.
Therefore
There are no realistic candidates with contrary views.
Is that really too complex for you to understand? Jesus Christ.
LMFAO