Argumentation on Reddit
[013] Presidential Qualms
Username: Repulsive_Grand4746:
​
Redditors: Redditor20, Redditor21, Redditor22
​
Subreddit: changemyview
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Preface:
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
​
​
Discussion
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor20:
Change My View: The Left is more racist than the Right.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor21:
Then why are like 99% of White Supremacists right wing when the left is supposedly so racist.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor20 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Then why are like 99% of White Supremacists right wing when the left is supposedly so racist.
​
I imagine Redditor20 rejects the premise that 99% of white supremacists are right wing.
​
Or maybe they believe 99% of brown supremacists are left wing, and that there are more brown supremacists than white supremacists.
​
White supremacists being right wing has nothing to do with the left being racist, but your question suggests you think they are linked.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor22:
I mean the fact that we just had a president who had no qualms catering to white supremacist movements sort of suggests there's a f*ckton of them in this country.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
I mean the fact that we just had a president who had no qualms catering to white supremacist movements sort of suggests there's a f*ckton of them in this country.
​
What do you mean by qualm?
​
American Heritage defines it as:
​
-
An uneasy feeling about the propriety or rightness of a course of action.
-
A sudden disturbing feeling.
-
A sudden feeling of sickness, faintness, or nausea.
That is all feelings. How can you establish as fact a person's feelings toward something? I have not researched other dictionaries about the word to give me any other ideas on what you might mean, and I do not want to push a definition on you, so please define exactly what you mean by qualm.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor22:
You're taking issue with my use of the word "qualm"? Just substitute in "problem", "issue", or "concern". In the context they mean the same.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
You're taking issue with my use of the word "qualm"?
​
It is an issue because you said it is a fact. Attention to detail with precise definitions is a fundamental part of critical thought. Are you surprised I am taking your fact claim seriously? I hope it is refreshing at the very least.
​
When we are establishing something as fact, we must have high standards, because we generally regard facts as definite truth. If we are not careful with what we regard as fact, then we are not careful with what is true. This is what you mean by fact, right?
​
​
Just substitute in "problem", "issue", or "concern". In the context they mean the same.
​
OK. If they mean the same then my question still applies. How can you establish as fact a person's feelings toward something?
​
Or I can break it down another way. Your teaching can accurately be rendered as this:
​
-
It is a fact that we just had a president who had no problems, issues or concerns catering to white supremacist movements.
If the president felt troubled catering to white supremacists, then they had a problem, issue or concern with catering to white supremacists. Since you adhere they had no problems, issues or concerns, you adhere they never felt troubled catering to white supremacists.
​
So how do you know the president never felt troubled catering to white supremacists?
​
If we get past this issue, I will move on to address your use of the word catering, because I have challenges there too.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor22:
The president didn't have any trouble sucking up to white supremacists because he keeps doing it lol. Like you realize he still includes white supremacist talking points in his speeches right?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
The president didn't have any trouble sucking up to white supremacists because he keeps doing it lol.
​
That is invalid logic.
​
If the president consistently sucks up to white supremacists, that does not mean the president does not have trouble doing it.
I consistently cook eggs for breakfast, but that does not mean I do not have trouble doing it. Whether I do have trouble cooking eggs is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is a necessary conclusion.
​
It is possible that the president consistently sucks up to white supremacists and has trouble doing it.
​
So when you affirm:
​
-
It is a fact that we just had a president who had no problems, issues or concerns catering to white supremacist movements.
How do you know this to be a fact?
​
I am happy to engage with your further points after we pass this first issue.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor22:
No the logic is quite fine. If you have a problem with doing something you don't do it.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
No the logic is quite fine. If you have a problem with doing something you don't do it.
​
Then I will test you on it.
​
If the logic is fine, then it must be fine when applied to other situations:
​
-
The woman did not have any trouble giving birth, because she keeps doing it.
-
The man with a broken leg did not have any trouble walking, because he keeps doing it.
-
The president did not have any trouble sucking up to white supremacists, because he keeps doing it.
-
The abusive husband did not have any trouble assaulting his wife, because he keeps doing it.
Is the logic fine in all of these situations? If not, then it is not fine in the president statement. We must remain logically consistent.
​
If you agree the logic is actually not fine, then how do you know it is a fact that we just had a president who had no problems, issues or concerns catering to white supremacist movements? How do you know the president did not have problems with such a thing?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor22:
No, I don't have to agree with your other statements there because they're not analogous.
​
It's very easy to not spout white supremacist talking points. It's not so easy to give birth. Ergo your argument doesn't work.
​
However it's very clear from Trump's actions of promoting white supremacist talking points that Trump promotes white supremacist talking points. QED
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
No, I don't have to agree with your other statements there because they're not analogous.
​
They are all analogous by the logic they share. They all share the same line of logic you praised: People must not have problems doing things if they keep doing them. You need to be centered on the logic because that is the subject of the argument.
​
So my argument works.
​
Is the logic fine in all of those situations? If not, then it is not fine in the president statement.
​
Please be logically consistent and consider my words carefully. Help me create a fair coherent discussion if you are going to engage with me from now onward.
​
​
It's very easy to not spout white supremacist talking points.
​
Not necessarily.
​
How do you know it is easy for the president to not spout white supremacy?
​
Do you figure the president is not a white supremacist? If so, then it would probably be problematic for the president to spout white supremacy, which by your fine logic would mean the president does not spout white supremacy. If the president is a white supremacist, then it would probably be not so easy for the president to not spout white supremacy.
​
​
It's not so easy to give birth. Ergo your argument doesn't work.
​
This just hurts your point because now you affirm people do not give birth.
​
You said - If you have a problem doing something, you do not do it - and - Giving birth is problematic.
​
So you either affirm people do not give birth because birth is problematic, or people do not have any trouble giving birth because they keep doing it.
​
QED
​
Which is it?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor22 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Next: [002] The Impossible Stone Argument
​
Enter: Additional Writings