I appreciate that you aren't going to see it this way..but everytime you try to lecture anyone on logic in this thread you embarass yourself.  It's no ones fault but your own that we refuse to conform to your retarded straw effigy.  

That's what you're doing to yourself...for trump.  I can't see the point of it. What can;t be logically inferred, that trump and hitler both took familar and importantly similar positions? OFC it can..that's the only thing you -refuse- to discuss, that's the only reason that you had to pile all this cowfood up in the first place - but it doesn;t -have- to be inferred because those are simply the facts around which inferences themselves are made. If i wanted to infer, for example..that this will turn out poorly for the us (and for the trumpsters) just as it did for germany...which, ofc, I do infer and for all of the same reasons in each comparative case.

You couldn't engage with people in the conversation they were having, you couldn't dispute the comparisons they were making. The most exhaustive response you've deigned to deliver on -that- is "he hasn't gassed any jews!". You seem to think that your frantic googling for a fallacy that fits rescues this ignorant non-rebuttal, but it doesn't..since no one is claiming that trump -is- hitler..that a is d, nitwit......we're just pointing out ways in which trump and hitler are alike.

Well, I hope he never does gas a jew, but my bar is obviously higher than yours regardless.

and as for admitting wrong, Hell, we still have a surprising number of folks that want Reagan added to Mount Rushmore . . .

St. Ronnie and St. Donnie are both going to end up enshrined in the hearts of the american nutter wing. The alt right all but had a funeral for their fuhrer when they realized that america wasn't going to let him pull their shit.  

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: What does any of this have to do with Hitler?  You've pointed out Hitler is irrelevant to your conclusion.

No, I haven't. You see, I'm not using these parallels to draw conclusions; I'm taking note of them, and in this thread arguing that there is validity to many of the comparisons based on what both men have actually done that others don't make a habit of doing. Not every, or even most, politician(s) race-baits or uses xenophobic demagoguery. Not every politician, or even most, stereotypes entire selected groups in order to whip up support for himself. Not every politician, or even most, utilizes the Big Lie or the Rant. Those parallels are well-founded between the two under discussion, though. It's as if you're unable to see gradations of thought, and instead ascribe your own Manichaeism to those of us here disagreeing with you, when in fact there's an understanding that there is a matter of nuance and gradation.

Yet you insist on ascribing to others positions they don't hold, and then swatting at those positions. I won't bother you with calling the fallacy by its name, because then you'll just stereotype me as another typical atheist ... because you don't understand nuance.

 

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: Which leaves the question of motivation.  Why would someone bring Hitler into this?  I think it's common knowledge it's done because they want people to make illogical inferences that are favorable to their cause.  

That may be the case with some folks. Me, I take note of the parallels because "to be forewarned is to be forearmed."

If you've burnt yourself on a stove before, and you notice a stove is on in the kitchen, surely you let the parallels from the past inform your behavior, no? Me, I never have cared for whistling in the dark.

Your mileage obviously varies.

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: Part 2, what are the conclusions you are drawing based on the existence of these 'parallels.'

"Be particularly aware of what's going on today." We all learn from experience. Most of us are able to learn from the experiences of others as well as ourselves.

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: Part 3, I don't know what ex post facto means.  Googled it, still not sure.  I begrudgingly voted for Trump.  There was a lot of finger crossing that went along with it.  I don't think it's a serious mistake yet.  Politics is tricky business, because they need to get votes to win.  And they need to say a lot of crazy shit to get votes.  I'm sure in 2008 when Obama said he believed marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, the LGBTQ community was crossing their fingers he was just saying it so the southern black communities didn't get spooked, and not because he actually believed it, for example.

I find there to be a reasonableness to a toned down version of the stuff Trump said during the campaign.

Just as I thought ... downplaying his bullshit in order to defend a stupid vote.

I'm surprised such a master of Google-fu finds such a common Latin phrase (it's in our Constitution, fer cryin' out loud) inscrutable. It means, essentially, "after the fact", and in this context, your "arguments" here (and I'm being generous with that characterization) are ex post facto defenses of a misspent vote, I think.

(June 20, 2017 at 1:42 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I appreciate that you aren't going to see it this way..but everytime you try to lecture anyone on logic in this thread you embarass yourself.  It's no ones fault but your own that we refuse to conform to your retarded straw effigy.  

Hypothetically, if I were exceptional at this logic stuff, and you were lousy at it, but had no idea you were lousy at it, wouldn't you conclude, in that case, that I was making a 'retarded straw effigy' and embarrassing myself as well?

Unfortunately, what is or isn't a retarded straw effigy isn't decided by how good someone is at something, or by how stupid the other guy is.  I could be a mouth breathing idiot that couldn't think himself out of a paper bag...but I'd still have nailed your comments to the wall.

Embarrassing yourself, everytime.

When someone erects a straw man of someone's position, no one is more qualified to understand that than the one being straw-manned, no matter how good or bad at logic they are.

(June 20, 2017 at 2:39 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: What does any of this have to do with Hitler?  You've pointed out Hitler is irrelevant to your conclusion.

No, I haven't. You see, I'm not using these parallels to craw conclusions; I'm taking note of them.

 

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: Which leaves the question of motivation.  Why would someone bring Hitler into this?  I think it's common knowledge it's done because they want people to make illogical inferences that are favorable to their cause.  

That may be the case with some folks. Me, I take note of the parallels because "to be forewarned is to be forearmed."

If you've burnt yourself on a stove before, and you notice a stove is on in the kitchen, surely you let the parallels from the past inform your behavior, no? Me, I never have cared for whistling in the dark.

Your mileage obviously varies.

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: Part 2, what are the conclusions you are drawing based on the existence of these 'parallels.'

"Be particularly aware of what's going on today." We all learn from experience. Most of us are able to learn from the experiences of others as well as ourselves.

(June 20, 2017 at 11:08 am)wallym Wrote: Part 3, I don't know what ex post facto means.  Googled it, still not sure.  I begrudgingly voted for Trump.  There was a lot of finger crossing that went along with it.  I don't think it's a serious mistake yet.  Politics is tricky business, because they need to get votes to win.  And they need to say a lot of crazy shit to get votes.  I'm sure in 2008 when Obama said he believed marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, the LGBTQ community was crossing their fingers he was just saying it so the southern black communities didn't get spooked, and not because he actually believed it, for example.

I find there to be a reasonableness to a toned down version of the stuff Trump said during the campaign.

Just as I thought ... downplaying his bullshit in order to defend a stupid vote.

I'm surprised such a master of Google-fu finds such a common Latin phrase (it's in our Constitution, fer cryin' out loud) inscrutable. It means, essentially, "after the fact", and in this context, your "arguments" here (and I'm being generous with that characterization) are ex post facto defenses of a misspent vote, I think.

There is certainly a debate to be had in the way you relate Trump to Hitler.  I'd argue against it being relevant in this case, but the general idea seems reasonable enough to me.  I think the confusion is you popped up in the middle of a lot of people arguing a different thing.  Took me a couple posts to catch on that you were doing your own thing.

I don't care much for words.  I just google'd the stuff, because I get a kick out of everyone shouting out names of fallacies on here.  And I don't think my vote was stupid.  It was definitely a gamble, though.  We'll see if it was a mistake in hindsight in a few years.

A gamble implies some sort of expectation of potential payout.  What did you expect to gain?  Hopefully, you didn't expect any of what's happened....particularly, I hope you weren't expecting trump to make a running hitler joke of himself and his supporters, because then your vote would start to seem really strange.

I have a buddy who voted for trump..for example, on the dead president theory. That what we really needed was a president who wouldn't be able to get anything done, and who couldn't actively harm the country himself. At least he got that half right.

(June 20, 2017 at 2:49 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: When someone erects a straw man of someone's position, no one is more qualified to understand that than the one being straw-manned, no matter how good or bad at logic they are.

I think differentiating between (back to google) Reductio Ad Absurdum and a strawman is very difficult for people bad at logic, because they don't have the ability to follow the implications of their position to the wacky conclusion.  So they just think their position is being misrepresented, which leads to incorrectly calling out "Strawman!"