Good job, thanks I appreciate it.
For the record NotreDame has repeatedly and completely misrepresented me and manufactured an argument that was never there.
“Manufactured an argument that was never there”? I quoted directly from your exchange to Paulos! You made an argument to Paulos. Below is the argument you made.
You said: “Masks could very well be making it worse.” When asked how by Paulo’s you said: “By using them incorrectly.” When Paulo’s stated better to wear them than not wear them at all, you said, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all.”
Okay, pausing for a moment to look at this exchange. You’ve made an argument. You made a claim, mask could make it worse, supported your claim with a weak premise of using the mask incorrectly, and sought to refute the idea of using a mask was better than not using a mask. You’ve made an argument. You made a conclusion, provided a supporting premise, and sought to refute a claim by another poster.
But the above argument continued: Paulo’s asked, “Again, how?”, in replying to your claim of, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all.” Your response, in answering the question posed by Paulo’s is “how,” and in support of your claim, “Not if using them incorrectly spreads it worse than not wearing them at all,” you said, “If masks do block a portion of the virus via our respiration that means the virus would be highly concentrated on the mask.
Now just a short time ago I watched people walking into a gas station. 5 in a row all did the exact same thing. Grabbed the mask out of their pocket. Touching the potential concentrated virus. Put it on their face. Grab the mask again at the nose/mouth level to pull it up over their nose thereby touching the most concentrated part a second time. Then, grab the door handle to open the door.
Every one of them touched that handle within a minute of each other. Inside people were touching and readjusting their masks all over the place.
That simply cannot be good. I don't know how bad it might be because no one is looking into it.”
That’s an argument. You provide a real life example of how use of the mask is incorrect, and the incorrect use of the mask is used to support of your claim the incorrect use of the mask, making it worse, refutes Paulo’s view using the mask is better than not using the mask.
In addition, stunningly you claim what you’ve described “simply cannot be good” despite your admission it hasn’t been studied! Well, I’d it hasn’t been studied, then how can you confidently claim what you’ve witnessed “simply cannot be good”? I digress. Moving along.
So, that is making an argument, and you made that argument in this thread.
I asked if you whether there was data or evidence the virus was spreading by what you’ve witnessed as incorrect use of the mask. In other words, I’m asking for the supporting evidence of the argument you made to Paulo’s. You said, “Point is that it's worth looking into... Without being ridiculed.
I realize touch is not considered the primary transmitter... But if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face. This is not an outlandish scenario.”
Here, you’ve combined the remark “worth looking into” with a scenario where you are very conclusory, as you say, “if your mask is super-concentrated and you touch it... Then touch something else like a handle... Then someone else touches the handle... Then their own mask/face... They've got a super concentrate right on their face.”
I said it isn’t known whether someone would have, as you claimed, a “super concentrate right on their face,” from your scenario. Your reply was: “Actually there have been studies... With covid... that support this.”
That’s an argument. You made a claim, “super concentrate right on their face,” and alluded to supporting evidence for the claim, “studies...that support this.” That’s an argument. And as of this moment, those supporting “studies” are conspicuously absent from your posts.
No misrepresentations man. None. What’s attributed to you above are your own statements, in a dialogue to Paulos and me. You made an argument to Paulos and to me.
That’s the “record.” You are defensive and deflecting because you have taken a point of view, a position, and said evidence exists in support of your position because you’ve seen the evidence, having read the evidence, and being asked to cite to the evidence. Inexplicably, you aren’t citing to the evidence you say exists because you’ve read the evidence, but instead playing the victim role because it’s unfair to be asked to cite to the evidence you say exists, evidence you say that you’ve seen.