A Response to Why I am #NeverTrump

[StefanM]

It is almost unbelievable to me that some here would actually like and agree with such an obvious ridiculously fallacious argument against Calminian's argument above! Almost...

It wasn't a fallacious argument. It was approaching the argument from a different angle.

Everything said was accurate, and, honestly, could be said by a Trump supporter primarily concerned about SCOTUS.

And, in case you want to launch into me, keep in mind that I am OPEN to supporting Trump. I'm just not convinced at the moment.

That doesn't mean I can't be convinced, but I would really appreciate a civil discourse. I'm not saying this just to you; it's a general comment for all Trump supporters. Right now I am "not Trump," but I am not "never Trump." There is a huge difference.

 

[Lewis]

Hook, line, and sinker. Go to the 1:40 time mark.

Ok, Trump got on the Obama/Clinton bandwagon with Libya at one point. Hey they were the experts. Trump had no access to the intel that Obama and Hillary did, all he had to go by was news reports. In fact Obama had already secretly inserted CIA operatives into Libya, and the media was full of reports of Qaddafi's misdeeds.
LINK

As for Iraq, Trump was saying:
Nov. 4, 2003
"The tremendous cost” of the war and the “very, very unpleasant surprises in Iraq.” He says, “The question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place.”

Dec. 15, 2003: with Neil Cavuto:
"Well, look, you have a lot of questions and a lot of people questioning the whole concept of going in, in the first place, Neil. But we are in, we went in".
LINK

 

[SovereignGrace]

The same was said of Reagan. "he wants war" is what I heard all the time.

And comparisons are impossible not to make. Reagan, just like Trump, was questioned about his past liberalism, about his Hollywood career and his astrology believing wife, and his failed prior marriage. It's all the same stuff. The only difference is the lack of wisdom in today's church, willing to throw away our supreme court. If you're willing to do that, you truly are foolish.

To call that foolish to vote in a way that it violates their conscience is uncalled for Brother. I live in WVa, and plan on voting for Trump, but he is soooo far ahead it's scary. But if Brother StephenM feels bad to vote for Trump, ppl died to give him that right. I say kudos to him for standing for his beliefs. And I think HilLIARly and Bill are Jezebel & Ahab part deux...

 

[InTheLight]

Ok, Trump got on the Obama/Clinton bandwagon with Libya at one point. Hey they were the experts. Trump had no access to the intel that Obama and Hillary did, all he had to go by was news reports.

It wouldn't matter. Trump said yesterday that he doesn't trust and wouldn't use US intelligence reports.

 

[Lewis]

It wouldn't matter. Trump said yesterday that he doesn't trust and wouldn't use US intelligence reports.

Skepticism over intel reports might be a very healthy thing. He may have been referring to intelligence reports on Libya ca. 2011 when he says, "The intelligence services have made such bad decisions.”

 

[SovereignGrace]

I still can't get that picture out of my head of HilLIARly and Pocahontas coming out on stage with their hands held high celebrating the SCOTUS' overturn of Texas' abortion bill. And this reprobate is very likely the next POTUS. This has left indelible image in my mind.

 

[Benjamin]

It wasn't a fallacious argument. It was approaching the argument from a different angle.

Any beginner student in Philosophy of Basic Logic and Critical Thinking Skills should be able to recognize the multiple fallacies in Tendor's reply/argument. Your confirmation that Tendor was addressing a different argument should have been your first clue as to the root of those fallacies. Take it or leave it.

Everything said was accurate, and, honestly, could be said by a Trump supporter primarily concerned about SCOTUS.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the the argument in question was a fallacy.

And, in case you want to launch into me, keep in mind that I am OPEN to supporting Trump. I'm just not convinced at the moment.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the the argument in question was a fallacy.

That doesn't mean I can't be convinced, but I would really appreciate a civil discourse. I'm not saying this just to you; it's a general comment for all Trump supporters. Right now I am "not Trump," but I am not "never Trump." There is a huge difference.

This seems to be a complete different subject, but I'm sorry if you believe calling out a fallacy is uncivil if that's where you're headed.Other than that, I am glad that you remain open minded and continue to consider pit-falls of committing to the manipulative agenda of others to join such a movement as #NeverTrump.

 

[blessedwife318]

accidentally posted. This is what happens when I run on too little sleep

 

[StefanM]

This seems to be a complete different subject, but I'm sorry if you believe calling out a fallacy is uncivil if that's where you're headed.Other than that, I am glad that you remain open minded and continue to consider pit-falls of committing to the manipulative agenda of others to join such a movement as #NeverTrump.

On the issue of fallacy, that word gets thrown around so much as to be practically meaningless most of the time. This is a discussion board, and conversations are fluid.

 

[Benjamin]

On the issue of fallacy, that word gets thrown around so much as to be practically meaningless most of the time. This is a discussion board, and conversations are fluid.

Having knowledge of philosophical principles is a way to draw out the truth in those discussions. “Fallacies” are simply a description of known methods which are used to avoid bringing out those truths. You would be wise to appreciate the value of recognizing them.

 

[StefanM]

Having knowledge of philosophical principles is a way to draw out the truth in those discussions. “Fallacies” are simply a description of known methods which are used to avoid bringing out those truths. You would be wise to appreciate the value of recognizing them.

My point is not the existence of fallacies or in the recognition thereof. I instead argue that the concept of "fallacy" has evolved far beyond philosophical ground. The semantic domain of the term is so inflated that it can become a just a way of saying you reject the argument.

Formal fallacies are rock solid. Informal fallacies run the gamut. Unless I have missed something (entirely possible), we are dealing with informal fallacies at the most.

The specific post to which I gave a positive ranking stands in two senses--in isolation and in context. And in that context, there are arguably multiple contexts.

I say that the original post, in isolation (or by itself), is unquestionably true. Whether it is true in context is a debatable matter, so is whether or not it is a fallacy.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 1am Pacific, this thread will be closed.

 

[Tendor]

That the Gospel should be central to a Christian’s life IN NO WAY negates the extreme importance of the issue of the Supreme Court. It is not an either/or issue. Nor would any reasonable thinker come to the conclusion that Calminian’s use of “main issue” was to imply such a fallacious claim that he was holding the issue of the Supreme Court over the importance of the Christian Gospel or even would one honestly conclude he was even making such a suggestion.

I never said that it was an either or statement. Only that the Gospel is what is of most importance. Which is a statement that is contrary to what Calminian made. Also, you must know Calminian very well so that you feel comfortable to clarify for him what he meant as opposed to taking what he said at face value.

That who is on the Supreme Court will not effort our eternal fate ALSO HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the issue, NOR does that negate the importance of this issue in the upcoming election. Just more fallacy.

I never said that it negated the Supreme Court issue only that the Gospel is more important. Also, Why did you start shouting in the middle of your sentence? If you're going to shout why not shout the entire sentence?

It is almost unbelievable to me that some here would actually like and agree with such an obvious ridiculously fallacious argument against Calminian's argument above! Almost...

How is this comment in any way related to what Calminian said?

 

[Reformed]

No defense of Trump I see, only attacks on others. Very telling indeed

When this election is over, and either Trump or Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office, just watch the histrionics of the Christian Right that was in the tank for Trump. They will excoriate you if Clinton wins, blaming you for not voting for Trump. If Trump wins they will be besides themselves with glee (but you and I know the truth, as to what type of president Trump will be). Watch these people closely. Watch how they will prove themselves hypocrites by giving Trump a pass on his ungodly and unconstitutional ways, contrary to how they attack Obama.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 1am Pacific, this thread will be closed.