“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”

That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.

  • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    17 months ago

    High voter turnout helps Democrats.

    Ignoring the fact that this is absolutely not certain. It just tends to be that way. If something is uncertain, it doesn’t count. . .well, of course, only when it suits your purpose, of course. lol

    We know that low voter turn out benefits Republicans because of how our voting system works and the demographics Republicans appeal to.

    Ignoring the fact that we also know that swing states exist and regularly, very confidently, can declare which are going to be close. Suggesting the opposite is baseless speculation.

    People moving states doesn’t change the number of votes overall, just the demographics and vote count in each state.

    True. But our system is electoral based, and so switching from a “certain” state to a “swing” state makes your vote more meaningful. So by not moving to a swing state to support Biden, you are actually supporting Trump.

    The people we are discussing already live in historic swing states.

    I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about all the people who live in non-swing states who stay there. By your logic, their inaction to support Biden is actually support for Trump. lol. How is this not clear by now? You’re so busy chasing your own tail trying to be right that you’ve got yourself completely turned around.

    Their statement that they don’t support Trump, when they are actively planning to help him win an election, is meaningless.

    No, they are not actively doing this. They are running an anti-Biden campaign while also being anti-Trump. They don’t support either. That’s the point. They are likely just going to sit the vote out because they don’t support either candidate. You can paint this as stupid and something that is likely to hurt them, and I would absolutely agree, but their point is that they are playing a long game and by pulling support from Biden, because he is doing stuff they think is bad for Muslims, they will get more support from Democrats in the future. They are just okay with Biden losing because they think even that would be better in the long wrong.

    Your argument is what is known as a Straw Man Fallacy.

    Incorrect, it’s not the straw-man fallacy because I’m not saying you are making this argument, I’m applying your logic to another situation that you are sure to disagree with, to demonstrate how ridiculous your logic is. It’s called reductio ad absurdum and it’s a well established method of debating. If we want to pull out the debate books, what you are doing is called false dilemma. It’s like you realize the faults of your own argument and you are simply alerting me to them. I appreciate it.

    • @ToastedPlanet
      link
      English
      17 months ago

      I’m not talking about them.

      Then your argument is not addressing my central point and is a Straw Man Fallacy. Once your arguments address my central point instead of other positions, they will improve considerably.

      I’m applying your logic to another situation that you are sure to disagree with

      Unfortunately for your argument, I do agree with my argument’s logic in the other circumstances so that didn’t work either.

      what you are doing is called false dilemma.

      Our two party system is a zero-sum game. One candidate must win and the other must lose. Thus it is impossible for anyone to be neutral in such a system. By not voting for Biden in historic swing states, these people are helping Trump to win. They know this to be true, which is why they are organizing a movement around this idea. They think punishing the Democratic party in this way will benefit them in the long run because it will force Democrats to be more progressive. This reasoning is flawed, because if elected, Trump will dismantle our democracy and there will not be future elections.

      • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Then your argument is not addressing my central point and is a Straw Man Fallacy.

        Ignoring the context in which that statement was made to misrepresent it, attacking that, and then accusing me of straw-manning. Hilarious.

        Unfortunately for your argument, I do agree with my argument’s logic in the other circumstances so that didn’t work either.

        lol. It’s literally my argument that you only accept your logic when it supports your point. You just unintentionally admitted I am right.

        Our two party system is a zero-sum game.

        Incorrect. This is the false dichotomy. You need it to be true or your whole point falls apart, but as we see here there are at least 3 options: support Trump, Support Biden, support neither.

        They think punishing the Democratic party in this way will benefit them in the long run because it will force Democrats to be more progressive. This reasoning is flawed, because if elected, Trump will dismantle our democracy and there will not be future elections.

        You’re confusing “this is a bad idea that is going to hurt you” with “supporting Trump.” These are not the same things. I agree that they are doing a dumb thing, but they also are not “supporting Trump.”

        I need to know, are you actually this dumb or are you just trolling? Your writing makes it sound like you aren’t a complete idiot, but your the content of your arguments reveal a complete lack of critical thought.

        • @ToastedPlanet
          link
          English
          17 months ago

          Ignoring the context in which that statement was made to misrepresent it, attacking that, and then accusing me of straw-manning. Hilarious.

          The context was another straw man.

          lol. It’s literally my argument that you only accept your logic when it supports your point. You just unintentionally admitted I am right.

          Perhaps reread my sentence. I fully believe my argument’s logic is consistent across all circumstances you have raised in your argument. I believe this because that is the case.

          support neither.

          Not voting for either candidate benefits the Republicans. The people we are discussing are basing their movement around this idea.

          You’re confusing “this is a bad idea that is going to hurt you” with “supporting Trump.”

          These concepts are not mutually exclusive. They have been doing both of those things.

          I need to know, are you actually this dumb or are you just trolling? Your writing makes it sound like you aren’t a complete idiot, but your the content of your arguments reveal a complete lack of critical thought.

          I am not relevant to the topic of discussion. But since you asked, I think my commitment to addressing arguments is an indication of my desire to have good faith discussions. That being said the internet is an imperfect mechanism for conveying intentions. So believe what you want about me.

          • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            “We don’t have two options. We have many options,” Jaylani Hussein, director of Minnesota’s Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter, said at a press conference in Dearborn, Michigan, when asked about Biden alternatives. “We’re not supporting (former President Donald) Trump,” he said, adding that the Muslim community would decide how to interview other candidates.

            Literally and explicitly straight from the horse’s mouth. If you’re committed to addressing the arguments in good faith, you’ll admit that you are wrong now. Well, of course, unless you’re a troll or a complete idiot. And, no, that’s actually not a false dichotomy.*

            *actually it probably is, there are probably a number of other embarrassing reasons you might try to deny it. And based on how much you’ve simply ignored reality in this debate during while “arguing” in “good faith” I’m sure you’ll try. lol

            • @ToastedPlanet
              link
              English
              17 months ago

              “We don’t have two options. We have many options,” Jaylani Hussein, director of Minnesota’s Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chapter, said at a press conference in Dearborn, Michigan, when asked about Biden alternatives. “We’re not supporting (former President Donald) Trump,” he said, adding that the Muslim community would decide how to interview other candidates.

              This is the kind of meaningless statement I’ve been talking about in my argument. They are planning on not voting for Biden in historic swing states so that he loses and Trump wins. Them saying “We’re not supporting Trump” doesn’t mean anything if they help Trump win an election. They are empty words meant to save face. Another way to put it is this person is lying.

              Literally and explicitly straight from the horse’s mouth. If you’re committed to addressing the arguments in good faith, you’ll admit that you are wrong now. Well, of course, unless you’re a troll or a complete idiot. And, no, that’s actually not a false dichotomy.*

              The reality of that is so obvious, given what we know about our election system and the two parties we have to choose from, that simply stating the opposite isn’t a compelling argument. Rather than trying to articulate why the opposite is true, your argument simply relies on ad hominem statements. But this topic has nothing to do with me and thus your argument isn’t persuasive.

              *actually it probably is, there are probably a number of other embarrassing reasons you might try to deny it. And based on how much you’ve simply ignored reality in this debate during while “arguing” in “good faith” I’m sure you’ll try. lol

              Also, a good faith discussion doesn’t mean one of the people arguing has to admit that they’re wrong. I believe another person can see my arguments and not be convinced by them.

              • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                17 months ago

                This is the kind of meaningless statement I’ve been talking about in my argument.

                You’re arguing that they are supporting Trump. They are literally and explicitly saying they don’t support Trump. Yet pointing this out is “meaningless.” Holy shit the lengths people will go to avoid admitting that they are wrong will never cease to amaze me.

                Another way to put it is this person is lying.

                So, maybe they are lying about not supporting Biden. We “can’t know for sure” which way they are lying. So, as usual, your point is self-defeating and your flailing contradicts something you said earlier.

                Let me guess: “I can claim they are lying when it suits my point. . .but when you can claim they are lying in the same exact way, that doesn’t count!”

                But “they’re lying!” is classic. I’m cracking up over here.

                Rather than trying to articulate why the opposite is true, your argument simply relies on ad hominem statements.

                I literally just linked you an article with them saying something explicitly that proves you wrong. Trying to pretend that my arguments “rely” on the ad hominem is just a desperate attempt to protect your own ego.

                But this topic has nothing to do with me and thus your argument isn’t persuasive.

                If them telling you, outright, that they don’t support Trump isn’t going to persuade you that they don’t support Trump, you’re all but outright admitting that nothing will persuade you away from your delusion. At this point, I’m no longer trying to persuade you, it’s just entertaining watching you lash out and flail around. I’ve never seen such a fragile, yet proud ego. . .so unwilling to admit they are wrong and at the same time stick it out. Most people would have either just admitted that they were wrong by this point, or slink off. You, however, wow. Impressive. To stick around while getting so repeatedly flogged. Amazing.

                Also, a good faith discussion doesn’t mean one of the people arguing has to admit that they’re wrong.

                Agreed.

                I believe another person can see my arguments and not be convinced by them.

                If this thread is any indication of how you typically argue, that probably happens a lot. lol

                • @ToastedPlanet
                  link
                  English
                  17 months ago

                  The fact that the statement is meaningless can be deduced from the fact we live in a two party system. Since one candidate must win and the other must lose the situation is a zero-sum game. We also know that Trump, as the presumed Republican candidate, will benefit from low voter turnout as all Republican candidates generally do. Not to mention these peoples’ movement resets on the idea they can influence the election simply by not voting for Biden in order to punish the Democratic party. In short, we know the statement “We’re not supporting Trump” is false, because all the available facts contradict it. All their statement proves is that they don’t want to admit they are supporting Trump in the election.

                  I read the posted article and saw their claim that they don’t support Trump. I did not take their word at face value because I saw the contradiction in their statement.

                  Your argument is good at making it seem like it won the debate and its aggressive nature makes it seem like it is constantly on the attack. But ultimately a lot of effort is wasted on posturing without delivering any substance with it. With half as much effort put at refuting my argument’s central point, your arguments would be much more compelling.

                  • @EatATaco@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    In short, we know the statement “We’re not supporting Trump” is false, because all the available facts contradict it.

                    Except, of course, the fact that you can actually support pretty much anyone you want for POTUS and are not restricted to the nominees of two major parties, and the fact that they have openly said that they don’t support Trump. I mean, those are only the most damning facts for your argument. There are plenty of others that we have hashed over that also demolish your self-contradictory position.

                    I read the posted article and saw their claim that they don’t support Trump. I did not take their word at face value because I saw the contradiction in their statement.

                    Of course not because it would force you to admit that you are wrong, and you’re not arguing in good faith, but desperately trying to pretend that you are not not wrong. Just like a child.

                    But, of course, by accusing them of lying, this is also an ad hominem. Something you were hilariously and hypocritically up in arms about me doing just a little while ago. I’m shocked it took me this long to realize that that accusation was just a warning that you were going to do it at some point.

                    With half as much effort put at refuting my argument’s central point, your arguments would be much more compelling.

                    Your central point is absolutely demolished by the fact that they explicitly said they don’t support Trump. Your central point relies 100% on claiming they are lying when you have zero evidence to support this accusation. All I’ve done throughout this debate is show how the same absurd logic you’ve used to justify your point can be used to justify claiming tons of people who are actually going to vote for Biden are actually Trump supporters. I can only presume this is because it would catch you in the net too, and you don’t want to have to admit you are a Trump supporter. You are about as intelligent as one, so you would be among your kind.