Shag, before we get any further.... I would like for you to really back your headline... You keep saying that you have, but you haven't. You can by doing these two things.
This whole post is nothing more then a dishonest and disingenuous attempt to shift the
burden of proof onto me and
raise the goalposts.
Here is an explanation of shifting the burden of proof appropriate to this discussion:
Shifting the Burden of Proof – occurs when speakers do not prove their own claims while forcing others to prove them
Here is an explanation of moving the goalposts:
Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
To accomplish this dishonesty with the burden of proof, you continue with the mischaracterization of my argument starting with citing your loaded question...
You have never answered me when I have asked where is the proof that these people were reacting to something democrats were saying
That question assumes the mischaracterization of what I claimed that you keep asserting. It is a
loaded question and I have refused to answer it.
Loaded question...is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda
It is a deceptive attempt to get me to accept and legitimize you lie.
Then, you continue to assert you mischaracterization with this line...
there isn't any place where you create the connection between the words of the Dems causing the actions of the people in the story.
Show me where you have created this connection between the left/Dems and the people in this article.
You are already predicating your demands on a false premise (your blatant mischaracterization). One that has been disproven multiple times in this thread. I am through disproving this over and over. I have proven what
I said, I am
not going to prove your
lies about what I said. It is deceptive for you to try to get me to.
You give this flawed explanation as justification for your mischaracterization...
...you were claiming the Dems were encouraging the specific actions. By using the word 'this' in conjunction with 'vile hatred' you were referring to the very specific actions within the article. If you cannot show a direct link your headline is false. If you want to just generalize this you would need to say 'This is the type of vile hatred...." But, you didn't do that. You set up the story as 'the' example of vile hatred. You have to connect the two.
Your argument is deceptively equating hatred, an emotion, with actions. emotions and actions are different things. Actions can be
based in emotions, but they are not the same thing.
My claim was never referring to the
actions in the article but the
hatred those actions are based in and that those actions represent.
Then, you end with this demand that ties it all together...
If you cannot answer these...
Show me where you have created this connection between the left/Dems and the people in this article.
Show me where you have ruled out the other sources that have talked about the unfairness of the bonuses in reference to the people in the article.
Your headline is a lie.
So instead of doing your typical passive aggressive shtick, you are flat out being aggressive. Hence to demands.
However, you have yet to provide a logical justification for your claim that
I am somehow connecting the Dems/left directly to the actions in the article (kinda hard to do when you are trying to justify a lie).
Your aggression simply makes it all the more clear that you are trying to deceptively force me to have to disprove your lie; this time through aggressive demands, instead of your normal passive aggressive methods. You are shifting the burden of proof.
In fact, what you are doing (shifting the burden of proof) is an evasion/deflection technique to avoid having to justify your claim. Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to first prove your assertion, not on me to disprove it.
Oh, before I forget, you still need to answer these questions that you have been avoiding:
- Do you think fallacious arguments are a valid form of debate?
- Do you think fallacious arguments should go unchallenged (as to their logical nature) in a debate?
You want rudeness - because it is the only thing you understand?
No, I just want honesty. But that is clearly something
you don't understand.
