Wow. That is the longest post I have ever seen, and I just don't have time to do it justice at the moment.
I will hit a few highlights, I guess.
Nobody used a sports analogy for the fight language. Perplexed by that statement you make. I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense. Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.
The language was used in the EXACT SAME context.
Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.
I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone. That's fine. And irrelevant. He spouted a lot of opinions, and was certainly bombastic and obnoxious about it. So noted.
That said, there is always another election coming along. It won't be Trump, but it will be someone to the right of Biden/Harris, in my estimation, which certainly isn't hard to find.
I get it. You don't like Trump and are glad that he is gone.
How do you know? You and I have never had any exchange where I expressed any dislike for Trump. In your world, is it implausible someone can look at the totality of Trump’s speech, the events and facts leading up to the speech, the facts surrounding his speech, and conclude Trump incited the violence (not invoking the strict legal meaning) or is in part responsible, without any dislike as the basis of their view? You’ve completely ignored the real possibility someone can reach the conclusion I have based on the facts and logical inferences from those facts regard, as opposed to reaching such a conclusion out of any consideration of dislike for the man.
I compared political speeches to political speeches, and they all use language like that, meaning to fight for their ideas and principles, over and over. But somehow, we understand that if one faction does it (all the Democrats I listed, which is just a drop in the bucket) and express horror if Trump did it. That makes no sense.
Yes, it is well known you are of the opinion “that makes no sense.” This is no surprise. It’s been your view consistently now for what, the last few pages or more?
But saying it doesn’t make it so, and at this juncture is past the point of expressing a conclusion and reached the point of enumerating the facts ans analytically looking at the facts and logic of the arguments.
What your statement ignores is the salient point I made in my prior post. Of course it is possible the derision towards Trump for use of the phrase, where the same derision was conspicuously absent when others used the same phrase, can rationally make perfect sense when and where the context and facts distinguish his use of the phrase from the others using the same phrase and the differences rationally show the meaning communicated isn’t the same.
You are attempting to deflect into other areas, such as the use of the words, "I'll kill you" (something that should be said by anyone anywhere, in my view), implying that it is fine if you are joking around. That is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand regarding language politicians routinely use about fighting for issues that are important to them.
Then you have not completely contemplated the logic of your argument. The analogy addressed a notion inherent in your reasoning of if Schumer and Harris others can permissibly say the phrase, then so can Trump, and the outrage against Trump is hypocrisy. Yet, this conclusion doesn’t follow from your reasoning.
Your reasoning operates off the idea of if one can permissibly say it, then so can another. But this isn’t true. My analogy you erroneously call a “deflection” challenges this notion by demonstrating just because the word or phrase was permissibly used elsewhere doesn’t mean the same word or phrase was permissibly used by someone else. In other words, it doesn’t follow Trump’s use of the phrase was proper or permissible on the basis Schumer, Waters, and Harris also used the phrase. Why?
As my analogy shows, factual context can change and alter what is being communicated by the same phrase being used. Translation, the factual context surrounding Trump’s use of the word or phrase can, and in my opinion did, change the message he was communicating when he used the same phrase others had used. Two people in my hypothetical used the same phrase, and by your logic, if it was okay for one to use the phrase, then the other may also use the phrase. Yet, my hypothetical shows it cannot rationally be deduced that use of the phrase by one is okay based on another’s use of the phrase.
Hence, logically, my analogy is germane to the dialogue, as it addresses an issue raised by your logic and inherently relevant to the overall dialogue. The idea since Trump, Schumer, Harris, and others all have the same common denominator, they used the same phrase, and if it was okay for Schumer and Harris to use the phrase, then it was okay for Trump to do so. However, as my analogy shows, this is faulty logic.
Trump is as responsible for the criminals who actually broke into the Capitol as Waters, and Harris and the Squad and all those who spoke vehemently are responsible for the riots in their followers. No more, no less.
To reach this conclusion unsurprisingly requires an analysis of the facts surrounding Harris and Waters’ use of the same phrase in comparison to the facts leading up to and surrounding Trump’s use of the phrase. Your post suffers from a conspicuous deficiency in the enumeration of the facts of involving the speakers’ use of the phrase, and the hard to miss lack of any comparison.
I’m familiar with the facts surrounding when Waters and Harris spoke, and they are different from those facts pertaining to Trump’s speech on 1/6.
Of course, different facts surrounding the comments of the speakers doesn’t render the speaker responsible for the actions of the listener(s). This is why I went through Trump’s speech.
Not going back to quote again exact statements made all of the political offenders to demonstrate that they meant exactly the same thing. You can do that on your own.
Excuse me? Your argument, your burden to do the unthinkable task of actually supporting your argument with facts. It isn’t my burden to find facts to verify what you’ve claimed.
The language was used in the EXACT SAME context.
Saying it doesn’t make it true. Regardless of what the other politicians said and in what context, my argument and analysis of Trump’s speech, and on the basis of this analysis my conclusion Trump has some responsibility for the entry into and damaging of the Capitol building, isn’t refuted by what other people said.
I can concede as true other politicians used the same phrase, but their use of the same phrase doesn’t exonerate Trump from responsibility of the entry into and damage of the Capitol building. Telling me or anyone else someone used the same phrase doesn’t mean Trump isn’t responsible.
So, to accurately sum up your argument. Incorrectly think my view is based on a dislike for Trump. Make an argument, make conclusory claims, and fail to support them with any facts, and the logic of your argument is the porous idea since others have said it and it was okay, then the same is true for Trump.
