Then that would not be a good argument, which they therefore would not find reason to take seriously. Youre doing an actual motte-and-bailey yourself right now.
The “motte” part, by definition, is a good argument. It’s only when they spring the “bailey” on you that the ulterior motive behind getting you to agree to it becomes clear.
The motte is just a reasonable position. It is also not a trap that get sprung. It is a place one retreats to when pushed on ones actual position.
The motte: “dont engage with bad critique from republicans”
The Bailey: “Don’t engage with critique no matter the quality, if it comes from republicans”
Now you’re just playing obtuse, because you, like the annoying rat you are, find it easy to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
First of all, I said do pay attention, not “don’t.” Second, no, paying attention and choosing not to engage are not, in fact, equivalent. Why are you misrepresenting me?
First of all, no you didn’t. Since we’re doing semantic fuckery and playing obtuse you did actually say “don’t pay attention”
because if you don’t pay attention to them you
Now I understand that it does not function as a direct rebuttal of your most recent statement, but it surprises me that you do - since you seem to struggle with the concept of words meaning things.
Second, no, paying attention and choosing not to engage are not, in fact, equivalent.
Like here, you clearly struggle with words having meaning, also odd to care so much about specific phrasing, and then fucking it up yourself. Why does that seem to happen a lot for you?
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case
So what I said was that in this case they’re the same action. Which they are. Which, if that’s what you wanted to discuss, you just could’ve, instead of forcing this silly roundabout where all we get is more tired of you and more suspicious of your motivation.
Now why do I think you are arguing for ignoring people? Because of your arguments and your responses to everyone who has pushed you on your nonsensical “motte and bailey” line, which you gave in response to a user stating:
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false. If you don’t put truth first, you don’t get to have a say in anything anyway.
Someone else writes
But that would be obvious in the stupidity of the criticism
which you respond to with
Not if the part you’re responding to is the motte and you’re ignoring the motivation and context!
So at this point I have my suspicions, but I’m mainly just annoyed at you talking about context, yet you cannot even engage with just the actual text itself, let alone context. And then we start interacting. From that point on it becomes clear to me, from the context of your other responses as well as the direct text of your responses, that you think anytime a republican argues, then that is an argument or critique that cannot be handled in good faith, since it is part of (your faulty idea of) some motte-and-bailey or other. If one subscribes to this line of reasoning then one cannot engage with any critique from a republican, no matter the quality, which can be boiled down to “don’t engage with” or “don’t pay attention to” or “ignore” or any variation of this action.
Now before you fuck up and start pulling another fallacy out of your ass: This isn’t what a strawman is either.
Not if the part you’re responding to is the motte and you’re ignoring the motivation and context!
Then that would not be a good argument, which they therefore would not find reason to take seriously. Youre doing an actual motte-and-bailey yourself right now.
The “motte” part, by definition, is a good argument. It’s only when they spring the “bailey” on you that the ulterior motive behind getting you to agree to it becomes clear.
The motte is just a reasonable position. It is also not a trap that get sprung. It is a place one retreats to when pushed on ones actual position.
The motte: “dont engage with bad critique from republicans”
The Bailey: “Don’t engage with critique no matter the quality, if it comes from republicans”
I didn’t say “don’t engage.” I said “pay attention.” Now who’s making the fallacy?
Now you’re just playing obtuse, because you, like the annoying rat you are, find it easy to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
First of all, I said do pay attention, not “don’t.” Second, no, paying attention and choosing not to engage are not, in fact, equivalent. Why are you misrepresenting me?
First of all, no you didn’t. Since we’re doing semantic fuckery and playing obtuse you did actually say “don’t pay attention”
Now I understand that it does not function as a direct rebuttal of your most recent statement, but it surprises me that you do - since you seem to struggle with the concept of words meaning things.
Like here, you clearly struggle with words having meaning, also odd to care so much about specific phrasing, and then fucking it up yourself. Why does that seem to happen a lot for you?
So what I said was that in this case they’re the same action. Which they are. Which, if that’s what you wanted to discuss, you just could’ve, instead of forcing this silly roundabout where all we get is more tired of you and more suspicious of your motivation.
Now why do I think you are arguing for ignoring people? Because of your arguments and your responses to everyone who has pushed you on your nonsensical “motte and bailey” line, which you gave in response to a user stating:
Someone else writes
which you respond to with
So at this point I have my suspicions, but I’m mainly just annoyed at you talking about context, yet you cannot even engage with just the actual text itself, let alone context. And then we start interacting. From that point on it becomes clear to me, from the context of your other responses as well as the direct text of your responses, that you think anytime a republican argues, then that is an argument or critique that cannot be handled in good faith, since it is part of (your faulty idea of) some motte-and-bailey or other. If one subscribes to this line of reasoning then one cannot engage with any critique from a republican, no matter the quality, which can be boiled down to “don’t engage with” or “don’t pay attention to” or “ignore” or any variation of this action.
Now before you fuck up and start pulling another fallacy out of your ass: This isn’t what a strawman is either.
What I said was “if you don’t pay attention to them you risk…”, which is obviously saying that not paying attention is a bad thing.
You’re a fucking liar and a clown arguing in bad faith.