[W;622]Please... Be honest. Do you really think a second impeachment is good for the country?

[cpwill]

Your strawman argument is that you and authoritarian progressives are claiming Trump, the non-authoritarian, is authoritarian.

No, that is a direct argument. A straw man argument, is a type of [URL='https://fallacyinlogic.com/logical-fallacy-definition-and-examples/']logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position in an attempt to gain an advantage in a debate. [/url]

So, for example, if I had responded to your argument that Trump wasn't an authoritarian with something along the lines of "HAH! So you are saying Trump is an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government whatsoever?!?!?!, then that would have been a strawman argument.

Instead, what we are dealing with in this thread is a Red Herring argument

(A Red Herring being a logical fallacy that is committed when someone deliberately tries to derail the discussion from the relevant issue to a different one),​

and, a particular kind of Red Herring known as the Ad Hominem fallacy

(An Ad Hominem fallacy, often referred to as “personal attack”, is likely the most common type of ad hominem argument, as well as one of the most common logical fallacies. It fallaciously focuses on the person behind the argument, rather than on the argument itself.)​

in which you responded to the point that "But So And So Did It!" is not an excuse we should accept from children, adults, or Presidents, by calling the people making that point authoritarians, apparently in the hopes of changing the topic to an argument over the definition of the terms authoritarian and libertarian.

If you would like to discuss those terms, I'm happy to do so - and thank you for providing your definitions above - but not as a means of rewarding an ad hominem. Let me know when you are ready to address the point that "But So And So Did It" is not an excuse for children, adults, or parents", and we can finish that and move on.

 

[cabse5]

No, that is a direct argument. A straw man argument, is a type of [URL='https://fallacyinlogic.com/logical-fallacy-definition-and-examples/']logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position in an attempt to gain an advantage in a debate. [/url]

So, for example, if I had responded to your argument that Trump wasn't an authoritarian with something along the lines of "HAH! So you are saying Trump is an anarchist who doesn't believe in any government whatsoever?!?!?!, then that would have been a strawman argument.

Instead, what we are dealing with in this thread is a Red Herring argument

(A Red Herring being a logical fallacy that is committed when someone deliberately tries to derail the discussion from the relevant issue to a different one),​

and, a particular kind of Red Herring known as the Ad Hominem fallacy

(An Ad Hominem fallacy, often referred to as “personal attack”, is likely the most common type of ad hominem argument, as well as one of the most common logical fallacies. It fallaciously focuses on the person behind the argument, rather than on the argument itself.)​

in which you responded to the point that "But So And So Did It!" is not an excuse we should accept from children, adults, or Presidents, by calling the people making that point authoritarians, apparently in the hopes of changing the topic to an argument over the definition of the terms authoritarian and libertarian.

If you would like to discuss those terms, I'm happy to do so - and thank you for providing your definitions above - but not as a means of rewarding an ad hominem. Let me know when you are ready to address the point that "But So And So Did It" is not an excuse for children, adults, or parents", and we can finish that and move on.

Trump has no tendencies for being authoritarian. You've made up the scenario that Trump is authoritarian and argue that Trump is authoritarian...Dude, it's a strawman argument.

 

[cpwill]

Trump has no tendencies for being authoritarian. You've made up the scenario that Trump is authoritarian and argue that Trump is authoritarian...Dude, it's a strawman argument.

Still unable to answer the point that "But So And So Did It" isn't an excuse we should accept for Children, Adults, or Presidents, huh?

 

[cabse5]

Still unable to answer the point that "But So And So Did It" isn't an excuse we should accept for Children, Adults, or Presidents, huh?

Another strawman argument. What does 'so and so did it' have anything to do with whether Trump is authoritarian? You're just obfuscating.

 

[cpwill]

Another strawman argument. What does 'so and so did it' have anything to do with whether Trump is authoritarian?

It doesn't Which is why it is a red herring when you respond to that point by trying to shift to an argument over authoritarianism.

 

[cabse5]

It doesn't Which is why it is a red herring when you respond to that point by trying to shift to an argument over authoritarianism.

Which argument am I shifting from?

 

[cpwill]

Which argument am I shifting from?

You attempted to divert from Trump's actions when the "But So And So Did It" excuse. I pointed out to you that I don't accept that argument from my children, much less from a President.

 

[cabse5]

You attempted to divert from Trump's actions when the "But So And So Did It" excuse. I pointed out to you that I don't accept that argument from my children, much less from a President.

When did I divert from Trump's actions? When did I use the excuse that 'But so and so did it' so Trump can do it?

 

[jmotivator]

I appreciate that's all you Trumpers have because you repeat that one cherry picked line out of everything Trump said that day- and in the months leading up to the insurrection. (Yes, I appreciate the rather narrowly plead articles of impeachment suggest the only issue is/are his comments on 1/6. We shall see if that turns out to be the case).

But it is a rather lame argument. How exactly did Trump expect his cult to "stop the steal"?

And if you had never heard of Kristallnacht before, the night of broken glass in Nazi germany November 1938, I assume you have at least recently since it has been mentioned in relation to the 1/6 insurrection. You may be aware that mobs of civilians torched synagogues, vandalized Jewish homes and businesses and killed perhaps 100 people. It occurred after Hitler had spent years whipping his cult into a frenzy to loathe the jews. But there is no evidence he actually told any of them to do what they did. I guess if that day, after an hour of fomenting more hate, had he said one time: "be peaceful" then he would be absolved of any responsibility for Kristallnacht, according to your logic?

What happened January 6th was not Kristallnacht and anyone who claims so is just signaling that they don't know what the **** Kristiallnacht was.

The response to January 6th by the Democrats and their media friends is actually rather close to the Reichstag fire, though. Added bonus that their "solutions" for a riot borrow heavily from Nazis and Soviets...