Lawmakers in several Republican-led states have introduced legislation promoting “fetal personhood,” the idea that fetuses and embryos are entitled to the same rights as people. But critics say fetal personhood laws create legal chaos and have ripple effects beyond abortion, from contraception access to fertility treatments, tax credits to the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes.
He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I’m just asking how it’s a relevant question… which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.
A question completely unrelated to the statement? What is the purpose of the question…ahh yes, to set up a strawman argument to distract from the original statement. That’s a shitty rebuttal, but it’s still a rebuttal, or at least building up to one.
One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
You never asked me, you asked op. Also, Im not the one who thinks you have to work for the party you vote for to criticize them in a public forum. Lastly, I doubt someone as terminally online as yourself has enough time to canvass in the first place.
problem here is you’re trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
The problem here is that your question isn’t relevant to the statement and it’s only purpose is to distract from the valid criticisms withing the original claim.
The problem is that your only response has been to attempt to lull people into a debate revolving around a logical fallacy.
Lol, I can’t answer a question for someone else. I asked the same question to you and you are unwilling to answer. Why expect anything else from op?
If you were to ask me… I would say that I don’t canvass for national elections as I live in the most conservative state in the Union, but i do get involved for state and municipal elections. As I already said, I have served a term as a district delegate.
So, now that your “question” has been fulfilled, why ask in the first place, and how is it relative to the original statement? And, who are you canvassing for?
Let me guess, the answer is going to be based on another logical fallacy?
Because they have spent months and months telling us who not to vote for without giving us any alternatives.
Again, the best way to confront that is by confronting the claim. Not by just insinuating that they’ve failed some kind of loyalty test.
In their argument they made valid points which shouldn’t just be brushed aside or excused without reason. It just makes it seem as if you are ignoring the criticism to the same extent that conservatives do for trump.
There’s been an alarming popularization of conflating valid and invalid criticism against politicians. Instead of Democrats rejecting the demagoguery the GOP utilizes to lead their constituents the DNC has been adopting their tactics. Which is ultimately a goal of fascist movements everywhere.
may possibly be that you don’t know the whole story here.
And how many people who see your argument are going to “know the whole story”? They’re just going to see that criticism can be ignored if you utilize the right logical fallacy.
The thread started as a series of criticisms, it devolved into “who you wit?” because of a strawman argument. One that I’ve been pointing at the whole time.
But, it seems people like yourself are just extremely susceptible to arguments based on logical fallacy that suit your innate biases.
I made no such claim about criticism. All I did was ask who they were canvassing for.
They all sure go to great lengths not to answer that question.
He asked the person he originally responded too, not me. I’m just asking how it’s a relevant question… which he is going through great lengths to avoid answering.
So your rebuttal was a complete non-sequitur? Seems you’re not being very honest here.
Maybe a better approach would be to actually address the argument instead of relying on logical fallacies to silence peoples concerns.
So who are you canvassing for?
It wasn’t a rebuttal, it was a question. One you have not answered. And yet you expect me to answer yours.
The problem here is you’re trying to argue with someone who asked a question.
A question completely unrelated to the statement? What is the purpose of the question…ahh yes, to set up a strawman argument to distract from the original statement. That’s a shitty rebuttal, but it’s still a rebuttal, or at least building up to one.
You never asked me, you asked op. Also, Im not the one who thinks you have to work for the party you vote for to criticize them in a public forum. Lastly, I doubt someone as terminally online as yourself has enough time to canvass in the first place.
The problem here is that your question isn’t relevant to the statement and it’s only purpose is to distract from the valid criticisms withing the original claim.
The problem is that your only response has been to attempt to lull people into a debate revolving around a logical fallacy.
No, the problem is you’re trying to argue with a question.
It’s called circular logic and can go on endlessly with idiots
Lol, I can’t answer a question for someone else. I asked the same question to you and you are unwilling to answer. Why expect anything else from op?
If you were to ask me… I would say that I don’t canvass for national elections as I live in the most conservative state in the Union, but i do get involved for state and municipal elections. As I already said, I have served a term as a district delegate.
So, now that your “question” has been fulfilled, why ask in the first place, and how is it relative to the original statement? And, who are you canvassing for?
Let me guess, the answer is going to be based on another logical fallacy?
Because they have spent months and months telling us who not to vote for without giving us any alternatives.
It may possibly be that you don’t know the whole story here.
Again, the best way to confront that is by confronting the claim. Not by just insinuating that they’ve failed some kind of loyalty test.
In their argument they made valid points which shouldn’t just be brushed aside or excused without reason. It just makes it seem as if you are ignoring the criticism to the same extent that conservatives do for trump.
There’s been an alarming popularization of conflating valid and invalid criticism against politicians. Instead of Democrats rejecting the demagoguery the GOP utilizes to lead their constituents the DNC has been adopting their tactics. Which is ultimately a goal of fascist movements everywhere.
And how many people who see your argument are going to “know the whole story”? They’re just going to see that criticism can be ignored if you utilize the right logical fallacy.
That’s what I did.
That is not what I did.
I don’t really care.
I’ll take a shot from the hip, it’s not the convicted felon.
I’ll take a shot from the rooftop. Still not a convicted felon.
And how is that relevant to the original claim?
Someone saying that they think both parties need better leadership isn’t claiming you’re going to vote for a convicted felon.
The original claim was left by the side of the road, several comments ago. We are slinging mud now.
That’s the whole point of strawman arguments, to distract from the original claim.
By employing the logical fallacy and defending it, you squash the very possibility of any other discourse.
Discourse? This thread is just people asking “who you wit?”
The thread started as a series of criticisms, it devolved into “who you wit?” because of a strawman argument. One that I’ve been pointing at the whole time.
But, it seems people like yourself are just extremely susceptible to arguments based on logical fallacy that suit your innate biases.
Of course I look for arguments that suit my biases, especially when I hear some right wing sound bites I throw them away.
What about you, have you transcended and shed your human weaknesses? Are you an entity of pure energy?