Bloodbath

Author: ADreamOfLiberty

Posts

Total: 68
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Even if he explicitly denied it two seconds later that would not matter.

If Bob accuses Amy of murder and then follows it up by saying "and by that I mean she used all the penutbutter, not that she killed a human being" that's just Bob contradicting himself.
No, that's not a contradiction, that's an example of poor usage of words in the extreme.

The purpose of language is to convey thoughts from one person's mind to another's.  When you disregard what the person clearly meant to say and instead take away only what the dictionary definition of their words amount to you aren't communicating.

So in the end you've made your position clear; you aren't interested in what the democrats are saying. To you this is all just a game of gotcha, and as long as you can find words that overlap with the words of your tribe then you get to claim both sides are equal. That's ridiculous and brazenly dishonest. There is no way you would do the same thing to someone in your tribe who uses the wrong choice of words (I could ramble of dozens of examples of Trump doing those that you will no doubt excuse away).

This is of course predictable to a certain extent. When you are fundamentally wrong on an issue the only way to argue your position is to focus on word games.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
When you disregard what the person clearly meant to say and instead take away only what the dictionary definition of their words amount to you aren't communicating.
If you let words mean whatever is convenient after the fact then you can't do logic.


So in the end you've made your position clear; you aren't interested in what the democrats are saying
I'm not interested in what they aren't saying but you wished they said instead.


To you this is all just a game of gotcha
It's called consistency. Consistent standards of evidence. Consistent definitions. Consistent rules of logic. Consistent application of law.


When you are fundamentally wrong on an issue the only way to argue your position is to focus on word games.
I couldn't agree more, observe "word games":


Please find one example of democrats "denying election results"
"I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win."
"You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris

"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy Carter
Just because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.


[Double_R]
Democrats in 2016: Trump didn't win legitimately
Republicans in 2020: Trump didn't win
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When you disregard what the person clearly meant to say and instead take away only what the dictionary definition of their words amount to you aren't communicating.
If you let words mean whatever is convenient after the fact then you can't do logic.
Logic would dictate that when a person says something and then a sentence later goes on to explain what they mean, the second part is the take away, not the initial impression you got before they explained themselves.

My 7 year old neice can figure that out. Why can't you?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Logic would dictate that when a person says something and then a sentence later goes on to explain what they mean, the second part is the take away, not the initial impression you got before they explained themselves.
Logic dictates that if you allow people to contradict the definition of words they use you're vulnerable to rhetorical manipulation up to the level of  equivocation fallacies.

The reason democrats denied the 2016 election is because they wanted the emotional and rhetorical effect of denying the 2016 election. The wanted to disown any owed loyalty to DJT and weaken his ability to control the executive branch. Also they were angry.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater and then follow up with "by which I mean this habenaro popcorn is spicy", well you can but that doesn't mean you didn't shout fire.

The democrats shouted fire. They denied the election. They said someone lost an election when he was announced as the next president in congress.

You can explain that to your niece.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Logic dictates that if you allow people to contradict the definition of words they use you're vulnerable to rhetorical manipulation
That doesn't follow, at all. And you know this.

"would be a shame if something were to happen to them", means "I'm concerned for your family's well being". And yet, you fully acknowledge this is a threat. You acknowledge this because you do in fact understand how basic communication and language works. You understand how context works. You understand that understanding what someone is saying is more nuanced than just picking up a dictionary.

You understand all of this, and yet you pretend you don't. Because Trump, or own the libs, or whatever you are holding onto that makes you stoop to making such a ridiculous argument.

The democrats shouted fire. They denied the election.
These are two different things, and they will always be no matter how much you keep repeating yourself.

Democrats denied the legitimacy of the election which is inherently subjective.

Republicans denied the vote tallies which is inherently objective.

Subjective =/= Objective.

If you really want to talk about definitions, try googling the definition of "different".
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I saw nothing worth responding to.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Subjective =/= Objective.

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
(D)ifferent.