“Biden worked hard to fix the climate. Maybe not hard enough for many people, but hard. He was stymied by many things, one of which was time. People are too critical of him when they should read more about the impact of the things he did do, and they should take a hard look at what they’ve done to help fix an existential problem that could kill us all.”
The opinion you have, “that Biden has done enough to be defended” is fine. I disagree with it but that’s the Internet, w/e.
Problem: you are using the fact “this is an existential problem, we must all fix this problem or die” as a defense of Biden. You can’t do this, because the two things are not the same topic. Doing what you have done is called a logical fallacy, specifically “whataboutism”.
Now, while adding nothing but more hot air, you wish to appear as if you know a lot while offering nothing of substance. Maybe you’re also hoping to move away from the fallacy, because admitting youre wrong, ever amounts to a deadly ego blow.
I’ve dealt with a million peeps just like this. If you’re following their lead I suppose your next move is to say “that’s not my argument at all, it’s actually [another bad argument]”. That would be very boring, so dont do that please.
Instead, commit to stop using bad logic to defend your points. Doing so can make good points into bad ones. Refresh your knowledge on logical fallacies and endeavor to avoid them
“Biden worked hard to fix the climate. Maybe not hard enough for many people, but hard. He was stymied by many things, one of which was time. People are too critical of him when they should read more about the impact of the things he did do, and they should take a hard look at what they’ve done to help fix an existential problem that could kill us all.”
Absolutely correct, in the main thrust.
Problem: you are using the fact “this is an existential problem, we must all fix this problem or die” as a defense of Biden.
Not at all. I’m using the fact that he took massive action on the problem, about 10 times more than any other US politician ever, as a defense of Biden. You are completely correct that the scale of the problem has no bearing at all on whether Biden did anything productive with it.
Now, while adding nothing but more hot air, you wish to appear as if you know a lot while offering nothing of substance.
So, this is one of the key parts that you missed. I asked about it before: What additional things did I add, after you asked me to defend?
Actually, I think by focusing on a pretty correct summary of what I said about Biden, and skimping on summarizing what I was saying about individual action on the climate, you set yourself up to miss that part of it. So, what specifically was my argument about individual action? It was incomplete, and what you said initially as a criticism in general of blaming the climate on individuals, I generally agree with. What did I clarify after your first message?
Maybe you’re also hoping to move away from the fallacy, because admitting youre wrong, ever amounts to a deadly ego blow.
I’ve dealt with a million peeps just like this. If you’re following their lead I suppose your next move is to say “that’s not my argument at all, it’s actually [another bad argument]”. That would be very boring, so dont do that please.
I can send you a few links to recent comments where I said something wrong, someone corrected me, and then I said, “Oh, you’re right, I stand corrected.” You’re trying to ad hominem, but even as far as the hominem, you’re not correct.
Ok, so here’s what i will do, since you asked me to look at your comments.
Instead of trollin thru old comments, i will in a week or so look at your new ones to see if i had any impact. My hope is a narrow improvement, an avoidance of this specific fallacy. If you wish me sad, continue as you were. If your wish is to be better, then you can start right now. We won’t talk again.
Okay, wait then, with bated breath, hoping, hoping that your good-natured efforts to help me improve will not be in vain. I hope, along with you, that your striving will not be in vain.
I’m so very glad you asked.
Your argument is, broadly:
“Biden worked hard to fix the climate. Maybe not hard enough for many people, but hard. He was stymied by many things, one of which was time. People are too critical of him when they should read more about the impact of the things he did do, and they should take a hard look at what they’ve done to help fix an existential problem that could kill us all.”
The opinion you have, “that Biden has done enough to be defended” is fine. I disagree with it but that’s the Internet, w/e.
Problem: you are using the fact “this is an existential problem, we must all fix this problem or die” as a defense of Biden. You can’t do this, because the two things are not the same topic. Doing what you have done is called a logical fallacy, specifically “whataboutism”.
Now, while adding nothing but more hot air, you wish to appear as if you know a lot while offering nothing of substance. Maybe you’re also hoping to move away from the fallacy, because admitting youre wrong, ever amounts to a deadly ego blow.
I’ve dealt with a million peeps just like this. If you’re following their lead I suppose your next move is to say “that’s not my argument at all, it’s actually [another bad argument]”. That would be very boring, so dont do that please.
Instead, commit to stop using bad logic to defend your points. Doing so can make good points into bad ones. Refresh your knowledge on logical fallacies and endeavor to avoid them
Absolutely correct, in the main thrust.
Not at all. I’m using the fact that he took massive action on the problem, about 10 times more than any other US politician ever, as a defense of Biden. You are completely correct that the scale of the problem has no bearing at all on whether Biden did anything productive with it.
So, this is one of the key parts that you missed. I asked about it before: What additional things did I add, after you asked me to defend?
Actually, I think by focusing on a pretty correct summary of what I said about Biden, and skimping on summarizing what I was saying about individual action on the climate, you set yourself up to miss that part of it. So, what specifically was my argument about individual action? It was incomplete, and what you said initially as a criticism in general of blaming the climate on individuals, I generally agree with. What did I clarify after your first message?
I can send you a few links to recent comments where I said something wrong, someone corrected me, and then I said, “Oh, you’re right, I stand corrected.” You’re trying to ad hominem, but even as far as the hominem, you’re not correct.
Yeah, looks like you’re that type lol…
Ok, so here’s what i will do, since you asked me to look at your comments.
Instead of trollin thru old comments, i will in a week or so look at your new ones to see if i had any impact. My hope is a narrow improvement, an avoidance of this specific fallacy. If you wish me sad, continue as you were. If your wish is to be better, then you can start right now. We won’t talk again.
See ya
Okay, wait then, with bated breath, hoping, hoping that your good-natured efforts to help me improve will not be in vain. I hope, along with you, that your striving will not be in vain.