You're defending someone for doing less than what the person you're arguing with wants.
Query: Why should Democrats care about Partisanship now?
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
No, let him pretend to be smart. It's all he's got going for him now.
"Tu quoque" is the Latin name for "you also", an informal logical fallacy otherwise known as "appeal to hypocrisy".
I pointed out that Adam Jensen is clearly just being partisan and that his arguments are irrational. It's okay when "his party" does it, because everything they do is just and good. It's not okay when "the enemy" does it because everything they do is wrong and evil. He has no justification for any of that, but that's his stance.
And when I call him out on the senseless partisanship on display, he attempts to change the subject of the conversation by pointing at my post history. He's trying to distract from the main point and imply that my argument should be invalid, not based on the merits, but because of my opinions about election fraud.
No, I'm defending someone for doing more than the person I was responding to was describing.
For the purposes of discerning whether your bias aids or detracts from your credibility, this isn't a meaningful distinction.
a) Yes it is.
b) Again, why does that matter to you? You really are taking the position of "I don't disagree with you, tstorm, but it's important that I attack your credibility."
No. You want them to do less. They want them to do more. You're defending them for doing an amount that is more than you want and less than what they want. Telling someone "you're actually getting closer to what you want than you think, and not as close to what I want" is absolutely a self-serving statement. This is not complicated.
It must be my indefatigable commitment to truth.
You're right, it's not complicated. I'm defending politicians that I don't like doing things that I don't agree with because I feel their actions are being misrepresented. That is a higher credibility situation than if I were defending Republicans for doing the opposite.
Give it a rest.
And yet you're avoiding the truth and commenting only on the optics.
Telling someone "you're actually getting closer to what you want than you think, and not as close to what I want" is absolutely a self-serving statement and pretending otherwise shouldn't fool anyone.
Why? You're wrong.
Avoiding the truth? So dramatic. I'm not engaging your other claims at present because I don't find them interesting and they are contingent; evaluating those claims would require researching something I don't find interesting. But since you also made a claim about how credibility works, that's something that can be analyzed a priori, or close enough as it may as well be. The person you're arguing with about the things I don't find interesting can handle the rest of it. There is no need to repeat them.
I mean, if you actually read the exchange, Tippy and I found a moderate level of agreement and moved on. There is no one still arguing against the facts I presented. And your "I don't care about the actual discussion, I just want to dump on you" attitude is not a good look.