2020 US Election Thread

[Frownland]

He's free to make his argument as I am to make mine.

Framing the discussion around tangential literalist flaws in subarguments is a tried and true tactic to ignore or obfuscate that broader argument that poisons the well just as much as pointing it out. I don't think you're doing it intentionally btw, it's just trendy rinow.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

He's free to make his argument as I am to make mine.

Framing the discussion around tangential literalist flaws in subarguments is a tried and true tactic to ignore or obfuscate that broader argument that poisons the well just as much as pointing it out. I don't think you're doing it intentionally btw, it's just trendy rinow.

Frown, I must say, most times I go to quote your posts, I find more text than I just saw only seconds ago. No dig, I make edits all the time as well lol.

Fair enough - what part of my question do you take issue with as a tangential literalist flaw? The use of the word "active" to describe "effort"? I'd be more than willing to reframe the question without that.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Frown, I must say, most times I go to quote your posts, I find more text than I just saw only seconds ago. No dig, I make edits all the time as well lol.

I'll cop to editing a lot. It's usually me rewriting my posts to avoid coming off as dickish.

Fair enough - what part of my question do you take issue with as a tangential literalist flaw? The use of the word "active" to describe "effort"? I'd be more than willing to reframe the question without that.

Well, since you asked: Active is one part and proposing barriers against running being the source of the disparity is another. "Some" is leading too but that's a bit different. It's probably better to let Lisna speak to this but I think that you inaccurately reframed what he saw as an aspect of the party that he liked as the defining aspect of the party.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I'll cop to editing a lot. It's usually me rewriting my posts to avoid coming off as dickish.



Well, since you asked: Active is one part and proposing barriers against running being the source of the disparity is another. "Some" is leading too but that's a bit different. It's probably better to let Lisna speak to this but I think that you inaccurately reframed what he saw as an aspect of the party that he liked as the defining aspect of the party.

I can see your point. It is not my intention to 'lead the witness' so to speak. I recognize that my initial statement made it sound like Lisna was suggesting that the racial heterogeneity of the Dem party is its defining appeal for him, which is not the case.

What do you think would be a fairer way to frame the broader question at hand?

"What is the cause of the racial disparity between the Republican party and the Democratic party?"

[OccultHawk]

Is fascism worse than capitalism?

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

it's not like the two are mutually exclusive

Is capitalism a form of fascism?

[Frownland]

I guess I'm not totally sure of what your broader question is. If you want to go really broad, maybe "How well do our leaders reflect or represent the populace?"? That removes the false dilemma of R v D at least.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I guess I'm not totally sure of what your broader question is. If you want to go really broad, maybe "How well do our leaders reflect or represent the populace?"? That removes the false dilemma of R v D at least.

I like the question in principle and I think that would lead to an interesting though quite tangential discussion - but I think that particular question is too broad and nebulous for our purposes. To have any kind of meaningfull discourse with this question, it would beg further questions like:

"Our" - who is the identifying party implied? America? The west? The world? I suppose identifying this would reasonably define "populace"

"leaders" - what leaders? Political leaders? Spiritual leaders? Intellectual leaders?

"reflect or represent" - reflect or represent how? the interests of the populace? the ethnic makeup of the public?

"How well" - how do we quantify this?

Does R v. D necessarily have to be a false dilemma?

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

I like the question in principle and I think that would lead to an interesting though quite tangential discussion - but I think that particular question is too broad and nebulous for our purposes. To have any kind of meaningfull discourse with this question, it would beg further questions like:

"Our" - who is the identifying party implied? America? The west? The world? I suppose identifying this would reasonably define "populace"

"leaders" - what leaders? Political leaders? Spiritual leaders? Intellectual leaders?

"reflect or represent" - reflect or represent how? the interests of the populace? the ethnic makeup of the public?

"How well" - how do we quantify this?

What do you think?

Does R v. D necessarily have to be a false dilemma?

No, but it is.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

What do you think?

What do I think about what? What a better general question might be?

Originally Posted by Frownland

No, but it is.

What do you mean by "it is"? You mean the way I used it is a false dilemma? I don't quite understand how. If we're comparing the two major political parties in the US and we're noting their differences, if I asked what would be the causality for racial disparity between two said parties, how is that a false dilemma? Should I bring the Greens and the Libertarians into the discussion as well? Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding you.