6 ms·

Very nice "no true scotsman" fallacy. The summarized exchange between you and me: Y: "He was never involved in real debate" M: "Here's a real debate" Y: "ah,

Very nice "no true scotsman" fallacy. The summarized exchange between you and me: Y: "He was never involved in real debate" M: "Here's a real debate" Y: "ah, well, nevertheless"

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jrflowers 1y ago
Charlie Kirk’s performances were hours long and you’ve now posted three times about how a single clip that you saw vindicates his entire career and reputation - while also declining to discuss anything other than that one clip. I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly, but for an analogy, Paul McCartney played the drums on Back in the USSR but do you expect people to post “drumming is dead” when he passes? Or another analogy: If you read an 800 page book about the superiority of white people, and in that book the author spent three pages talking about how much better they are at surfing than nonwhite people, is the book about surfing? If the book got really popular does that make the author a famous surfer who is famous for surfing?
- duckdriver 1y ago
  "Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate." So are we in agreement that you were wrong? If you had said "Paul never played the drums" then the example of the song is pretty relevant, wouldn't you say?
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    The statement “Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater” is not disproven by “well I saw him not do that for a few minutes once”. Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.
    - duckdriver 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - jrflowers 1y ago
        I just don’t think you have the gotcha that you insist that you do here. You keep quoting the first sentence of what I wrote as if that is all that I wrote. You’re kind of trying to use the same rhetorical trick on what I wrote as you’re attempting to do with Charlie Kirk’s performances: selecting context. “Well what if I only read a fraction of what you wrote? Or deliberately misunderstood it? What if I simply failed to understand a very simple point? That would make you look foolish indeed!” isn’t a cheat code to being correct. Out of curiosity can you quote the sentence that came immediately after the one you’ve repeated and respond to that? It’s not very long, just a little over 20 words, so complexity shouldn’t be a big issue. If not I’m going to have to end this discussion. The shoddy reasoning and leaps to victory are getting tediously close to “owning the libs“ rigmarole, which is profoundly empty and, frankly, boring.
        duckdriver 1y ago
        I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it. Quote it in reply and I will respond. Quoting you and responding to you is not a cheap gotcha. You need to take responsibility for your words. You said those things, and you have not retracted them. To your point, this is what you seem to expect of Charlie Kirk. You were welcome at any point to say "Ok I exaggerated a bit with that sentence, fair enough -- he's been in some real debates. My main point was XYZ and I'd like to discuss that." You have not done this, even now. I welcome you to accept the draft language I was forced to write on your behalf.
        jrflowers 1y ago
        > I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said? Here is the entirety of my first post (because context matters!), which was clear, and I have further clarified over the course of this discussion. I have italicized the sentence I would like you to address. >We can say that killing people is bad without making stuff up about the victims. >Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate. He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be. He happened to sometimes structure his performances to kind of look like good-faith debate, but pretending that the owning-the-libs displays are the same thing as actual discussion does everyone a disservice. You are also welcome to _additionally_ address my further clarifying statements, such as: > The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc. And > Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater

Very nice "no true scotsman" fallacy. The summarized exchange between you and me: Y: "He was never involved in real debate" M: "Here's a real debate" Y: "ah, well, nevertheless"

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jrflowers 1y ago

Charlie Kirk’s performances were hours long and you’ve now posted three times about how a single clip that you saw vindicates his entire career and reputation - while also declining to discuss anything other than that one clip. I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly, but for an analogy, Paul McCartney played the drums on Back in the USSR but do you expect people to post “drumming is dead” when he passes? Or another analogy: If you read an 800 page book about the superiority of white people, and in that book the author spent three pages talking about how much better they are at surfing than nonwhite people, is the book about surfing? If the book got really popular does that make the author a famous surfer who is famous for surfing?

duckdriver 1y ago
"Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate." So are we in agreement that you were wrong? If you had said "Paul never played the drums" then the example of the song is pretty relevant, wouldn't you say?
- jrflowers 1y ago
  The statement “Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater” is not disproven by “well I saw him not do that for a few minutes once”. Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.
  - duckdriver 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      I just don’t think you have the gotcha that you insist that you do here. You keep quoting the first sentence of what I wrote as if that is all that I wrote. You’re kind of trying to use the same rhetorical trick on what I wrote as you’re attempting to do with Charlie Kirk’s performances: selecting context. “Well what if I only read a fraction of what you wrote? Or deliberately misunderstood it? What if I simply failed to understand a very simple point? That would make you look foolish indeed!” isn’t a cheat code to being correct. Out of curiosity can you quote the sentence that came immediately after the one you’ve repeated and respond to that? It’s not very long, just a little over 20 words, so complexity shouldn’t be a big issue. If not I’m going to have to end this discussion. The shoddy reasoning and leaps to victory are getting tediously close to “owning the libs“ rigmarole, which is profoundly empty and, frankly, boring.
      - duckdriver 1y ago
        I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it. Quote it in reply and I will respond. Quoting you and responding to you is not a cheap gotcha. You need to take responsibility for your words. You said those things, and you have not retracted them. To your point, this is what you seem to expect of Charlie Kirk. You were welcome at any point to say "Ok I exaggerated a bit with that sentence, fair enough -- he's been in some real debates. My main point was XYZ and I'd like to discuss that." You have not done this, even now. I welcome you to accept the draft language I was forced to write on your behalf.
        jrflowers 1y ago
        > I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said? Here is the entirety of my first post (because context matters!), which was clear, and I have further clarified over the course of this discussion. I have italicized the sentence I would like you to address. >We can say that killing people is bad without making stuff up about the victims. >Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate. He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be. He happened to sometimes structure his performances to kind of look like good-faith debate, but pretending that the owning-the-libs displays are the same thing as actual discussion does everyone a disservice. You are also welcome to _additionally_ address my further clarifying statements, such as: > The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc. And > Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater