3 ms·
No it doesn't. It merely says he'd be more popular if he were what he claimed. That doesn't require the reason he's not popular to be that he's not what he cl
by pg 14y ago
No it doesn't. It merely says he'd be more popular if he were what he claimed. That doesn't require the reason he's not popular to be that he's not what he claims.
Suppose a restaurant is unpopular, due to bad food, bad service, high cost, whatever. There's no contradiction in expecting it would become more popular if a movie star started to hang out there every night.
We're now arguing about basic logic. I've found threads are usually irrecoverable at that point, so if you don't mind, I'm done.
- chacham15 14y agoI think that you are missing the heart of the matter. That is that the only piece of data that you have is popularity. Given that, how can you determine how well Romney was what he tries to seem? To put this into the context of your restaurant example, how can you differentiate between a restaurant that is unpopular otherwise but has a movie star and a restaurant with the same level of popularity but no movie star (with the movie star being analogous to Romney being what he tries to seem)? I'm sorry if you do not like these kinds of arguments as I try to involve as much base logic as I can. I think that base logic is to arguments what functions are to algorithms. Furthermore, sticking to logic results in an argument at least on the level of DH4 in your essay "How to Disagree."