I disagree with the notion that calling Trump stupid constitutes an insult, I take this to be a statement of fact*. The man thought Belgium was a city.
Anyway I did not intend this to become a drawn-out discussion, I rather took my original statement to be fairly uncontroversial, seeing how it apparently required clarification, I have elaborated on it in the original post, including the direct quotes showing what Trump did say. On my account there is nothing left to discuss, so I won’t continue the discussion unless there is a drastic change of tone and content. We can gladly discuss the evidence for or against the efficacy (and yes, it was efficacy!) of Chloroquine and/or Hydroxychloroquine, which is not a political topic at all and should not be confused with one, but if @ceratodromeus wants an actual political argument with me, then he can gladly have it in the appropriate section.
*Meaning it cannot be an insult, since it is true. At least this is the legal situation in my country. The US doesn’t actually criminalise insults afaik so I don’t know if there’s any differing legal definition for what an insult is or isn’t.
theropod, I was referring to you both insulting each other, not Trump or any other politician.
FYI, insults are not actionable defamation in the U.S., nor are true statements. Anyone can insult any politician, as long as it is not obscene and does not instigate a clear and present danger towards violence.
Criticism and insulting political figures is an inherent right of free speech under our Constitution.
Well I don’t think I have insulted ceratodromeus, he merely chose to feel insulted by a number of criteria for whom I consider stupid (mainly "people who get their medical advice from Donald Trump", which is another thing I would say is a very objective criterium for stupidity, considering it can literally be fatal), but I don’t think it is my fault if he chooses to identify with any of these criteria. In fact I think he has been very careful to not make any statement that could be called an insult towards me either, which obviously with him being so critical of my (true, hence non-insulting) ad hominem towards Trump would have come across as a double standard. Though I think he has made a fair deal of unwarranted and yes, lazy criticisms of my argumentation that I have already addressed, I do not consider those to be the same thing as insults, as they are not directed at a person but just at argumentation.
Post by Ceratodromeus on Apr 29, 2020 2:37:50 GMT 5
Well I don’t think I have insulted ceratodromeus, he merely chose to feel insulted by a number of criteria for whom I consider stupid
Why am i "insulted"? Because i have chosen to not call people stupid, and called out the fact that you have? Is that insulted behavior? This kind of comment is as bafflingly odd as your insinuation that i was attacking your english.
theropod, I was referring to you both insulting each other,
I haven't insulted him once, so i'm not sure where you're getting that from. All of my comments have been directed at how he has constructed his argument.
Yeah, so people who willingly became members of Trump’s staff would just make something like that up, but we have no reason at all to doubt Trump’s denial, right? You want it to go on record that there’s no 100% certainty that Trump actually said that? Fine. But then let the record also reflect that we both know it is overwhelmingly likely that he really did say it.
You don’t get to tell me what I can and cannot use in my reply. I can give you other if less relevant, examples of Trump talking BS, there is certainly no shortage of them. Remember how he talked about how his inauguration ceremony having many more visitors than Obama’s, just for the heck of it, despite the fact that there are photos clearly proving him wrong? Trump makes it a habit of talking BS, sometimes evidently just to prove that he can, sometimes apparently out of impulsive stupidity.
I merely thought the hurricane-nuking was a particularly nice example of the latter. If you have some issue with it, ignore it and move on.
You can try and distance yourself from the claim(s) that - I didn't read my own source(Lol) - This kind of quote is anything more than dubious
all you want, but the fact remains, and as i strongly said, if it isn't something that is independently verifiable, you shouldn't use it as a proponent of your argument. Regardless of your personal beliefs, one would have figured that is a basic argument structure thing. Guess not.
If there actually is a contradiction, yes
So, saying that you haven't claimed he said something in your reply, and then in your next reply using the gross interpretation
"Let’s inject people with disinfectant to cure diseases! " (...)
but what Trump is trying to suggest about its potential use as a treatment is bullshit all the same, albeit not as much as the whole "injecting disinfectant" stuff
No he didn’t explicitely tell people to "Go inject industrial disinfectants into their cephalic veins", where exactly did I claim that he did?
Once again, if you don't think the two quotes from your argument directly contradict the one on the bottom, that is a cognitively dissonant.
Well it makes no sense the way it is worded, so I ignored it. And well, it still makes no sense. Nobody is talking about using different products,
Lol, it makes perfect sense. You just chose to ignore it, for your own fallacious reasons. His verbatim quote of "can we do something like that" definitely refers to a different product, not just straight disinfectant. You can play the game of fallacy, going for "it made no sense so i ignored it"
If you are talking about replicating the results a disinfectant has on surfaces by different means inside the body, well that would be great, but it is fantasy
And well see, this quote from you perfectly demonstrates that you were capable of interpreting it correctly. You just chose to sprinkle in a wordy, needless reply around it. Fallacious at best.
That is not a "grotesque interpretation", it is literally what he is saying.
"can we do something like that"?, That ain't it chief.
Please don’t "go Trump" on facts and reality on me here.
Another retort. I should hold a tally.
I don’t like this practice of just commenting on what we perceive is the quality of the other’s responses instead of discussing content and as if it were of interest to anybody, but here I must do it myself in remarking that I find this refusal to reflect on actual content very odd as well. There’s not really much else to reply here, except maybe mention that here you are claiming (only partially correctly I might ad) that this is a question of if it is effective, while further down you claim you are not making any claims on this issue.
All i have been doing to this point is talking about the articles and trials that have been conducted on this drug, go directly quote me anywhere where i claimed anything directly on the effects of the drug outside of anything than potential therapeutic use. I'll wait on that. On the bottom line, you won't find them, because they don't exist.
Oh great, and once again you are ignoring most of what I wrote and picking out one small bit that for some reason you seem to mistakenly believe changes something about my wider argument
I'm not really sure why you continue to fallaciously claim i have ignored anything; the only thing wrong here, is the fact that you choose to use things in your argument regarding trump that you very clearly didn't even bother to read about before you replied to me. Once again, we circle back to the fact that you're using dubious or as you claimed of me (Partially true) information. I think some people might call that ironic in hindsight. Your wider argument is not the issue here, it is your use of dubious information. And in that, as you do in a debate, you can pick out and reply to comments within it. It's really not your first day on debate forums, so i'm not really sure why you chose this route at all.
You mean efficacy, not efficiency.
No, i do not. Nitpicking diction doesn't do your argument any favors either.
And yes you have (see above), for accusing me of not reading your quotes you are very quick to forget about them yourself.
Lol, this kind of insinuation of feigned ignorance -- that you've gone to the well for several times now -- really does you exactly zero favors. Need to really try harder in that aspect. There's nothing i've "forgotten" at all.
And what Trump claimed about Hydroxychloroquine
Considering the fact that Hydroxychloroquine came back with antiviral effects to SARS-COV, that is not true at all. That is a clear foundation, overconfident as it may be.
What is not intellectually truthful is A: making it look like I hadn’t acknowledged that this possibility exists and B: conflating a possibility of therapeutic use with something being a proven cure and a game changer. The "game changer" part I think being Trump’s own wording, despite his own officials consistently urging caution.
In response to A:)Hm, Making the claim several times now that the use of this drug has "no basis" or "no foundation" when there has already been the research on the potential posted in a response is excessively intellectually dishonest -- you can go back to the well of what trump said, but this is not the point of my argument. The fact of the matter is, the potential use of this drug does indeed have a basis.
In response to B:)I haven't conflated anything in the slightest. Once again, and to something you very obviously have glossed over or ignored entirely, i included one article that came back urging caution for the use of Hydroxychloroquine in close to my initial reply to you. Once again we see your fallacious attempts to insinuate feigned ignorance.
I have not glossed over that, I have even said the same thing (We need to wait for clinical trials) myself, which you yourself have apparently glossed over
Yeah this ain't it either chief, considering in one of my newest replies i said you're basically repeating what i have went over, I didn't gloss over it at all. Another winning reply.
To point out differences between an analogy and what the analogy as proof for it being a fallacy is usually to miss the point of an analogy altogether.
This is called a false analogy, and yes, it is a fallacy. There is not a strong point you are even trying to get at in your "analogy".
You know what? You are right about one thing, it is ad hominem.
Yeah, that's why you were called on it.
That would be of concern if my other arguments had hinged on it, but they don’t. Like this, I am just pointing out that some people are stupid, but that the president should account for this by not making statements that look like medical advice to those people. How would you call someone who swallows aquarium chemicals to protect against COVID, or someone who believes the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism for that matter? Doesn’t matter to me.
I really am not even remotely close to being sure why you felt the need to call people stupid in a discussion that you aren't even having with them, this kind of retort to people not even in this discussion is nothing more than eye roll inducing.
And I am not talking about the general public like you seem to believe for some reason, I am talking about medical researchers. Like the people Trump seems to believe he just pointed to a grandiose new treatment idea when he suggested they use UV light, as if those people didn’t have elementary physics classes and knew something that inactivates viruses will also fry your own DNA.
It's good to see you missed the point of the question. Even if it isn't surprising for people who know how ionizing radiation works, this is not the general public -- so that finding could very well be surprising to the general public. I didn't think it was a difficult concept for you to grasp, but apparently it was.
We can gladly discuss the evidence for or against the efficacy of Chloroquine and/or Hydroxychloroquine, which is not a political topic at all and should not be confused with one, but if @ceratodromeus wants an actual political argument with me, then he can gladly have it in the appropriate section.
I don't even think i've come close to becoming political at all; as far as i am concerned we were discussing the effects of these drugs in our replies. Guess not? Also, anything "sarcastic" in reply is in direct reply to some of your comments that have exactly 0 use in the discussion. But yeah, you don't have to reply.
SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strain responsible for COVID-19 outbreak... Timed perfectly. A corrupt coalition of Communist China and the so-called Democrats in Washington ( Communists / Socialists ) what-ever label you wish to tag them with. This virus was no accident. Thank God for President Donald Trump. In 2016, the worst president in U.S. history was replaced by the best president in U.S. history. I will vote for Donald Trump in Nov.,2020. IF the Socialist Party wins, America is lost forever. I know that Trump can defeat Joe Biden ( with his Alzheimer's disease / Dementia ) in a fair election. But, I also know that the Leftists will cheat in every way possible.