Dan Rowden wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2019 7:20 am
An equivalent and analogous scenario would be Naomi Wolf coming along and continually telling you 'that's just an opinion and I think it's wrong'
That would be a perfectly valid criticism from Naomi Wolf if I was offering an opinion and trying to support it with fallacious reasons, or no reasons at all. I wouldn't mind the criticism.
If I said that something was true because it is "in plain sight" or "obvious" or "every rational person believes it", then these would all be fallacious reasons, and so the criticism would be valid.
or 'you don't have all the facts' or
If I'm not presenting the facts, or a rational argument, then they would naturally assume that I don't have the facts - especially if they have good reason to think that what I'm saying is wrong. If people have the facts, they tend to present them. And if they don't have the facts, they don't present them, because when they would try to do so it would quickly become obvious that they don't have the facts.
'how you perceive SJWs is just your perception, you could be mistaken and deceived by your senses or confirmation bias'
That is actually true. That's why
the facts need to be discussed. What "facts" are SJWs putting forward, or appear to be putting forward, and are they indeed "facts"? This is what needs to be discussed - not how bad SJWs generally are. The only thing that matters is whether SJWs are speaking the truth in particular instances. Even then, you can't
absolutely know what SJWs believe, since they might just be repeating a script, for example.
This principle is why I can get along with people from the right. I judge them only on whether they are speaking the truth in particular instances, and not on their political affiliation, or what names they are called.
'if you had more facts you might think differently'
This one is actually absolutely true in the case of empirical matters - such as whether Trump committed a crime, for example.
This is why there was a big problem with the impeachment hearings, which was rushed through, because they weren't concerned with any facts, and didn't want to give Trump a chance to defend himself. They had already made their mind up before they even started, and nothing was going to change it. They made their mind up as soon as they lost the election, three years ago. Any reason at all would be enough to impeach him, since they've now foolishly decided that bipartisan agreement is no longer necessary.
Latest news is that Trump hasn't been impeached at all, since a person can't be found "guilty" without a trial, which happens in the senate. The whole thing is a huge deception.
That's the equivalent of what you're doing. And the truth is you would know Wolf was full of it.
Only if I knew that her facts were wrong, in specific instances.
Whether, for example, Trump is a proven fraudster is a black and white matter.
I don't care what names we give to people, whether we call them criminals, or mentally ill, or fraudsters, Nazis, or whatever. I only care about whether they are speaking the truth in particular instances. The facts.
It would be logically fallacious to say that a person can't speak the truth because they have been found guilty of a crime, or labelled a Nazi.