"Whataboutism" - the new cowardly sprint from being held to a standard

[forkup]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

 

[forkup]

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable.

Why? What does it matter if the people asking for accountability are making the argument in bad faith? Does accountability all of sudden become conditional with the intent of those pursuing it? I had this conversation a few days ago maybe it will enlighten what I mean.

My sense of right and wrong don't change with the administration. I believe firing a law enforcement official that is conducting an investigation that has personal implications means POTUS keeps his hands off. I very much suspect Durham has been ordered to conduct his investigation for partisan reasons, yet at no point does that opinion change my belief that once it started it should be allowed to finish.

I defended that position to both left-wing people and right-wing people in that particular OP. That is applying a standard. A standard that holds true no matter if I believe the people who are trying to hold people to account do it out of good or bad faith.

 

[Oldestyle]

You see the left calling any attempt to establish a standard as a "whataboutism".

Exactly.

Like when Trump's cult were called to account after they stormed the Capitol, the response was "What about the summer riots?"

That sort of thing.

Toro, it is not illegitimate to bring up "the summer of love" because that is a situation where the double standard applies is that during last summer, there was ongoing rioting, and destruction throughout the summer, including an actual insurrection where leftists took over part of a city, including a police station....

I personally wish that on Jan 6th, those people didn't do what they did...Because it gave you leftists an out, to the damage you've done on the west coast, and continue to do...

The comparrisons are relevant....

That is a false equivalency. "Leftist" didn't take over police stations or a city. The people who did so identified with BLM.

Do you not see the contradiction in your thought here...."Leftists didn't take over...But, the people who did do that Identified with a leftist supported group"....Really?

They did so in response to police brutality. No Democratic lawmaker told them to do it and them doing it wasn't to further the interests of Democrats. What happened on the 6th was done because the president of the United States told people directly to try to stop the certification of the election results.

Um, no, and nothing offered by House managers this past week proved that true either....All they did was offer emotional arguments strung together with highly edited snipets of footage produced by Hollywood, that would have never passed the standards of proof in a court of law...Then they closed with the usual liberal threat of 'do what we want or we will label you in the future'....

Now, I have already said multiple times that what those protestors did on Jan 6th was wrong on every level, something you as a leftist have not to date done, nor will you ever do in the face of groups you support doing far worse for longer periods of time....

I didn't realize that condemning sitting on someone's neck until death was considered a left position?

As to contradictions. It's funny that you find distancing Democrats from a group of people protesting and rioting for a cause that is not political, not called for by Democrats for the simple reason that they mostly vote Democratic contradictory. While at the same time arguing that Trump wasn't responsible for a group of people who presumably all vote for Trump that committed actions in the name of Trump, for a cause that literally was keeping Trump in office at the place Trump directed them to go.

One of us seems to have a bigger problem with contradictions. Who do you think that is?

Condemn it all you wish....But, when you cheer on the murder of police in the aftermath of that, it goes further than simple condemnation wouldn't you say?

And you can tout your narrative all you wish, he was just aqutted of your claim....So, it is baseless.

If you can find me anyone who "cheered on the murder of the police" feel free to give me the example.

He was acquitted because the majority that said he was guilty wasn't big enough. And for those that said he was not guilty, the majority aren't arguing that "my narrative" was wrong but rather that they don't feel they have the jurisdiction to do something about it. That is an entirely different argument.

"My narrative" is an accurate description of what happened and why.

There’s many quotes of prominent Democrats during and after leftist riots out west, where officers not only were injured, but died that said the violence must continue...Hell, our now VP, set up a fund to bail them out for Christ sake...

No, your narrative is bull shit trolling and you know it...

that said the violence must continue

Ok then with the recources of the entire internet at your disposal you'll have now problem giving an example. A statement like that deserves it.

Hell, our now VP, set up a fund to bail them out

Oh? That's news to me. You are of course capable of proving that? Or do you mean the Minnesota freedom fund? A non-profit most definitely not set up by Harris that has this mission statement. Minnesota Freedom Fund (mnfreedomfund.org).

No, your narrative is bull shit trolling and you know it...

arguing that Trump wasn't responsible for a group of people who presumably all vote for Trump that committed actions in the name of Trump, for a cause that literally was keeping Trump in office at the place Trump directed them to go.

Feel free to point out what exactly here is incorrect?

I don't know what's sadder, Fork? That you don't know that people were cheering that Police were injured or that our main stream media is so bad at their jobs these days that you wouldn't know that happened!

Feel free to enlighten me then. Show me a single Democratic lawmaker who cheered or said the violence should continue as J-mac claimed. I'm not averse to anyone showing me wrong.

Tell me how this works, Fork. If you're a Democratic lawmaker and you support BLM and Antifa and they attack the Police...aren't you supporting the actions that they're taking? If you're Kamala Harris and you support a fund that's bailing out violent protesters only to have them return to violent protest...how are you NOT supporting violent protest?

That very much depends. See, I support reforming the police. I think that police procedure that allows for something like George Floyd, or allows for no-knock warrants and doesn't allow for people to get compensation when obvious errors, often fatal errors occur should be revisited. I also support the right to protests peacefully, for both those protesting in the summer and during January 6th.

What I don't support is violence or rioting and there are as far as I know zero people in public office on the Democratic side that do. It's the same argument that's being made on behalf of Trump.

The difference is to me that the reason for the protest in the case of January 6th was solely a result of actions by Trump. Not an event that exacerbated previous tensions.
The difference to me is that I do not believe Trump actually doesn't support violence when it's in his interest. The reason for that is that unlike you I think, I can show Trump NOT going after the protesters but after Pence when the riots were occurring and when he did call for the rioters (insurrectionists) to withdraw what he did was be very ambiguous with them going even so far as to say to he loved them. It was only after it was clear that the public opinion was shown to be negative that he did so.

I'm prepared if you want to back up what I say using public statements by Trump to back up what I claim. I want you to do the same. That's how it works when certain statements are being questioned.

What exactly is it that you found lacking in Police procedure in regards to George Floyd? Did you want them to take classes on recognizing when someone has taken large quantities potentially fatal drugs? Is it just me, Fork or would our money be better spent teaching people like Floyd not to TAKE potentially lethal amounts of drugs? The function of the Police isn't to babysit...it's to apprehend those that break the law.

You seem to be wearing the same blinders that Democratic politicians have been wearing since the BLM and Antifa riots began months and months ago, Fork! Those "peaceful" protests that you support turned violent just about every night and it went on and on and on yet liberals declared that they were "mostly peaceful" and the main stream media went along with that. So at what point are both the Democrats and the main stream media culpable for the violence that they downplayed? You want to blame Trump for a one day event that I'm guessing he had no idea would escalate like it did...while excusing liberals who looked the other way night after night...month after month...while large US cities burned! Do you really not see the hypocrisy there?

 

[B. Kidd]

Whataboutism is Orwellian.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I have asked them. Both of them.

I'm not sure what that had to do with my response... what do you think of Kamala Harris supporting of bailing out BLM rioters?

 

[j-mac]

fork, start watching at 4:00 to the end, about two minutes.


”...They’re not going to stop, and they shouldn’t stop.”

 

[forkup]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

 

[BertramN]

You see the left calling any attempt to establish a standard as a "whataboutism".

Well, yes. "What about.." matters.

If your candidate and you denounce X openly, and you accuse the candidate you oppose of X while it's proven your own candidate has also done X...

You'd say me bringing up you and your candidate's hypocrisy is a "whataboutism"... which is just a defense mechanism to deflect and avoid your lack fo standards.

That's all is. If you're running around saying "Whataboutism".. you're an intellectual and philosophical coward..

Toughen up and set consistent, uniform standards for all people.

Unfortunately, you trump Nazis regularly compare apples to oranges. Or, compare a recent fact to one (or more) of your flights of fantasies (lies).

You trump Nazis cannot establish a "standard" in the real world, because all of you live in some twisted conservative fantasy world, where down is up and black is white, and 2+2=Jesus.


.

 

[Juicin]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

no you're just adding more nuance to your first principles...Assuming you're arguing in good faith

For example you woudl say something like "an attack on sitting members of congress and the VP are fundamentally (or threats to do so) is fundamentally different than attack on a local PD in Portland"

That's not moving the goal posts that's saying you can draw a first principles line that you are comoftable enforcing. Really not that difficult. I wouldn't phrase it as hypocrisy i'd just say you don't want that standard.

 

[forkup]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

no you're just adding more nuance to your first principles...Assuming you're arguing in good faith

For example you woudl say something like "an attack on sitting members of congress and the VP are fundamentally (or threats to do so) is fundamentally different than attack on a local PD in Portland"

That's not moving the goal posts that's saying you can draw a first principles line that you are comoftable enforcing. Really not that difficult. I wouldn't phrase it as hypocrisy i'd just say you don't want that standard.

I have made that distinction and I have made the distinction between the reasons behind the riot in the summer and those behind the riot on January 6th.

The point is that to fricus the similarities as he sees them allow him to write of any condemnation of the riots on January 6th as a bad faith argument while to me the differences allow me to argue it is not. Hence the moving goalposts. And why an appeal to hypocrisy is no way to set a standard.

Look at post 62. It illustrates it instead of simply explaining it.

 

[forkup]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

I mean 62

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

Well if you want to get fragile enough, you can't compare something with anything else that isn't exactly what it is. You're free to live there, I think you can compare things on how bad they are even if they have differences. Of course, you have to support why, which is what I do.

As far as post 62, here we go again.

I assume you're referring to the firing of Obama-era Inspector General Steve Linick who was investigating Pompeo? correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet, Obama did the same thing, firing Bush-era IG George Walprin, who was in the midst of investigation big-time Democrat monetary supporters in AmeriCorps.

You can't sound the alarms only about how wrong Trump was but then not allow discussion on previous presidents who have also done so. It's entirely misleading, and like I said, presents Trump as unprecedented when he's not. You can denounce Trump, but to be honest have to address Obama to maintain objectivity, and a true standard. And if you find you didn't freak out when Obama did it, perhaps it's in bad faith and not justified to do so for Trump. Many Democrats supported firing Walprin, but didn't support firing Linick. Why is it okay in situation A but not situation B? Well, we know why, politics, and that's what is important to note. The left acts as if it's acting on moral grounds when it does this, but it's merely political expediency, which isn't honorable or moral. And it's the same exact thing when the right does it. I can crap on Joe Biden for being snarky and rude to certain reporters, as he has, but as someone who voted for Trump I'd be in bad faith to do so, as Trump did the same thing, even if he was facing an entire different, 100% angry and adversarial media. And, if you brought it up, I can't say "That's a whataboutism, just focus on Joe Biden". No, that's a sprint from consistent standards for indivudals.

 

[forkup]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

Well if you want to get fragile enough, you can't compare something with anything else that isn't exactly what it is. You're free to live there, I think you can compare things on how bad they are even if they have differences. Of course, you have to support why, which is what I do.

As far as post 62, here we go again.

I assume you're referring to the firing of Obama-era Inspector General Steve Linick who was investigating Pompeo? correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet, Obama did the same thing, firing Bush-era IG George Walprin, who was in the midst of investigation big-time Democrat monetary supporters in AmeriCorps.

You can't sound the alarms only about how wrong Trump was but then not allow discussion on previous presidents who have also done so. It's entirely misleading, and like I said, presents Trump as unprecedented when he's not. Many Democrats supported firing Walprin, but didn't support firing Linick. Why is it okay in situation A but not situation B? Well, we know why, politics, and that's what is important to note. The left acts as if it's acting on moral grounds when it does this, but it's merely political expediency, which isn't honorable or moral. I can crap on Joe Biden for being snarky and rude to certain reporters, as he has, but as someone who voted for Trump I'd be in bad faith to do so, as Trump did the same thing, even if he was facing an entire different, 100% angry and adversarial media. And, if you brought it up, I can't say "That's a whataboutism, just focus on Joe Biden". No, that's a sprint from consistent standards for indivudals.

No, I was actually referring to the firing of Comey. What is interesting though that when I put a standard of behaviour on Biden you immediately seem to balk at the idea that that standard would be applied to Trump. Coming out with an entire array of what you consider comparable instances.

As for what you are saying. I have a 9 year old daughter. One of the things I'm trying hard to teach her is that you are responsible for your own actions. If you have kids I assume you have tried to teach them the same.

Yet here you are saying that when it comes to politics that doesn't apply, as long as the other side is capable of drawing a comparison to something else even if that something else has an indeterminant amount of differences. Something that de facto would mean that accountability in politics doesn't exist since its not at all difficult to draw comparisons between just about anything.

In your title you said that having a problem with whataboutism is cowardly. I'll ask you this. What do you think takes the most courage? Standing up for what you feel is right even when that could mean that you have to suffer harm or making the whole concept of right or wrong conditional on whether or not you feel someone else has acted the same way or not?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

Well if you want to get fragile enough, you can't compare something with anything else that isn't exactly what it is. You're free to live there, I think you can compare things on how bad they are even if they have differences. Of course, you have to support why, which is what I do.

As far as post 62, here we go again.

I assume you're referring to the firing of Obama-era Inspector General Steve Linick who was investigating Pompeo? correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet, Obama did the same thing, firing Bush-era IG George Walprin, who was in the midst of investigation big-time Democrat monetary supporters in AmeriCorps.

You can't sound the alarms only about how wrong Trump was but then not allow discussion on previous presidents who have also done so. It's entirely misleading, and like I said, presents Trump as unprecedented when he's not. Many Democrats supported firing Walprin, but didn't support firing Linick. Why is it okay in situation A but not situation B? Well, we know why, politics, and that's what is important to note. The left acts as if it's acting on moral grounds when it does this, but it's merely political expediency, which isn't honorable or moral. I can crap on Joe Biden for being snarky and rude to certain reporters, as he has, but as someone who voted for Trump I'd be in bad faith to do so, as Trump did the same thing, even if he was facing an entire different, 100% angry and adversarial media. And, if you brought it up, I can't say "That's a whataboutism, just focus on Joe Biden". No, that's a sprint from consistent standards for indivudals.

No, I was actually referring to the firing of Comey. What is interesting though that when I put a standard of behaviour on Biden you immediately seem to balk at the idea that that standard would be applied to Trump. Coming out with an entire array of what you consider comparable instances.

As for what you are saying. I have a 9 year old daughter. One of the things I'm trying hard to teach her is that you are responsible for your own actions. If you have kids I assume you have tried to teach them the same.

Yet here you are saying that when it comes to politics that doesn't apply, as long as the other side is capable of drawing a comparison to something else even if that something else has an indeterminant amount of differences. Something that de facto would mean that accountability in politics doesn't exist since its not at all difficult to draw comparisons between just about anything.

No you have it all wrong. I'm a Conservative, thus I share your value of being responsible for your own actions.

If you say Trump is bad for X, and I say "Well, you didn't get made when Obama did it". I'm not saying Trump or Obama are correct, I'm saying you're not consistent, and your claim against Trump is political, not moral. Thus, it's not reputable or credible. To be credible, you'll admit Obama was wrong to do it, and not claim "whataboutism" when someone brings it up. It becomes damage control for one side, while a smear campaign on your opposition. Avoiding critique of your own isn't healthy or honest.

 

[easyt65]

'Whataboutism' starts with someone doing something egregious, something you want to forget and not have brought up again...and then they / you attack / criticize someone....for something real, imagined, or manufactured....and that someone then brings up that egregious act you don't want brought back up and discussed....

Its the inability to face ALL egregious acts instead of just those perpetrated by the people you despise.

'Whataboutism' is not the problem...it's YOUR personal inability or choice NOT to want to acknowledge BOTH egregious offenses.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

'Whataboutism' starts with someone doing something egregious, something you want to forget and not have brought up again...and then they / you attack / criticize someone....for something real, imagined, or manufactured....and that someone then brings up that egregious act you don't want brought back up and discussed....

Its the inability to face ALL egregious acts instead of just those perpetrated by the people you despise.

'Whataboutism' is not the problem...it's YOUR personal inability or choice NOT to want to acknowledge BOTH egregious offenses.

Yes. When one cannot critique those who they support and only throw rocks at those who they oppose, and when pressed refuse to denounce both for the same behavior, only denouncing the opposition.. one is exposed as being politically motivated only, which isn't to be respected, and is mere political activism and dishonesty.

 

[forkup]

What you are saying is that if you can make a claim that candidate X on the left has acted a certain way (however wrong and I'd argue however imperfect the comparison) candidate Y on the right acting the same way is no longer wrong but just a "standard".

Do you see the fundamental flaw in that line of reasoning?

First off, I'm fine with trying to narrow our discussions. I enjoy debate with people who are civil and aren't just slinging the most radical conspiracy theories along with a series of insults.. which is why my ignore list is so wrong. LOL

My answer to this particular point is that pointing it out does not mean I support it. My issue is that Democrats, the media, aka "the left", act as if everything Trump does is absolutely unprecedented. They act as if pre-Trump politics were some happy, friendly atmosphere. Leading up to Trump we were absolutely exploding with divisiveness, and it showed in the Democrats behavior the moment Trump got into office and beyond, such as the sham continuation of Russian collusion for years, the Salem witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh (the worst, nastiest political spectical of my lifetime), etc.

Take the "throwing kids in cages" issue. A single picture sparked this, and it was reported and proclaimed by the left as if Trump implemented this, and the photo was because of Trump's policies and immorality. The problem was, the policy was made by Barack Obama, and the picture was taken during his presidency. Yet, Democrats and media.. I don't abuse this term as many do.. lied by acting so shocked and appalled while assigning this supposed immorality solely to Trump while ignoring the facts that it wasn't even him. So if you were going to come at Trump, and i said "Well, what about the fact that it was Obama's policy"... I'd be setting a standard. Either putting illegal immigrants in a cage is wrong or its not. When nobody gives a crap while Obama does it, but then it's front page news and the center of attention when it happens under Trump.. it proves it's not about the morality, it's political, and it's another instance of the left failing to hold a standard.

I'm quite aware that it's not just the left that is guilty of this, but life is about ratios. While I'm a Conservative (so you can write off my perspective here if you want) I think the left is far less concerned with standards than the right. I think the left uses anything they can right now at the moment to use it as a political weapon. They don't care if they did it, or if it's immoral and dishonest to do so. They've declared that Trump and the GOP are so evil that any action is justified as long as it harms them. They can simply charge the action they also did and declare its an unprecedented occurrence. The compliant media will refuse to fact-check or "narrative-check" the claim, and the history will not be reported. The larger public won't know the distortion, and that's how this pseudo-knowledge from the left gets installed.

So yes, when claims are made, we need to be able to judge it against other examples to make sure we aren't just being political opportunists rather than honest seekers of holding all accountable. People say Trump saying "fight" is some call to violence, but Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, hell even MLK have all used the word. When a politician says "fight" for something, they clearly mean figuratively, not literally. I never said Barack Obama was guilty of inciting the murder of 6 officers by a BLM radical in Dallas after he had demonized the police as racists continually. Obama raised the temperature, but the BLM guy acted as an individual. It's the same when the Bernie Sanders supporter shot up the GOP softball game after Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic healthcare plan. Sanders used inflammatory rhetoric, but he didn't incite the shooter. The same happened with Trump on January 6th. He used inflammatory rhetoric, but these idiots acted on their own. It's either Obama, Sanders, and Trump all incited, or none did. I side with the latter.

This illustrates the problem of using past behaviors to try to judge whether or not an action should or shouldn't be taken. You keep on trying to tie whatever past behavior from Democrats to justify, and yes it is a justification to somehow whitewash whatever Trump does. I on the other hand highlight the differences between the actions to illustrate how you can't do that. I have no doubt you could probably do the same vice-versa when you feel Biden did something wrong and I point out Trump's behavior.

What you end up with is not a "standard" as you called it in your OP. But ever-moving goalposts depending on what particular occurrence in the past you want to highlight and your point of view on that occurrence, and what you are trying to justify. It's no standard at all especially when you don't feel the occurrence has to be actually all that similar to use it, you can basically use anything and you will feel you're right.

I'm moving goal posts?

No, I'm attempting to create sentences of standards. Such as... Domestic Violence should be denounced absolutely and quickly, and those who commit it should be denounced. Democrats did not immediately denounce BLM riots, they were MIA, and as I mentioned, Kamala Harris supported bailing out the violent.

Trump denounced the violence that day very quickly. The violence began around 2pm, and at 2:38 Trump tweeted: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

38 minutes.

George Floyd died on May 25th. Candidate Biden didn't say jack until May 29th, where he told CNN that people “have a right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated. And more violence, hurting more people, isn’t going to answer the question."

Forgive me if I don't view that as a scathing rebuke of the violence. When you start out in reference to violence and say what people have a right to.. well, that's not a strong retort, not at all, and didn't even name who was doing it. If Trump had started out when discussing these capitol rioters saying how they have a "right to be, in fact, angry and frustrated".. would you take that as sufficient? I doubt it, you'd probably use that as proof that he supported them, and we all know it would be front page news for weeks by the Democrat media, and constantly parroted by Democrats in congress.

And, Biden's limited statement was 4 days later. Minneapolis burned, people were murdered, cops were assaulted.. and it took 4 freakin days. And he's going to lecture anyone on denouncing violence? Ha!

If Joe had assigned blame to BLM for their massive riots in the same way he is assigning blame to Trump for the few hundred idiots who got violent, while I would disagree with him on both accords, he would at least be consistent. But he isn't consistent, he doesn't have standard. He holds 2 of them.

1. For BLM, there's no connection of violence made in its name to BLM and its cause.
2. For Trump, there's an absolute connection of violence made in his name to Trump and his cause.

You can't hold these two positions at once and be expected to be respected intellectually, and it's by definition a rational impasse. It's like punching someone in the face, and then when they go to punch you back you say "HEY, I'M AGAINST VIOLENCE". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So, since those two standards are held simultaneously, one can obviously conclude it's not about the morality or action, it's about the optics and political expediency.. and not demonizing parts of your base. That's not being a moral stalwart, that's being a coward.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

We both are moving the goalposts. You try to draw similarities between last summer and the 6th. I'm pointing out the differences. We are both right, ( or wrong if you want to look at it that way).

That's the reason why an appeal to hypocrisy is a logically fallacious. And as such is no basis for setting a standard for anything.

I think post 66 highlights the fallacy and illustrates the ONLY way you can set an actual standard.

Well if you want to get fragile enough, you can't compare something with anything else that isn't exactly what it is. You're free to live there, I think you can compare things on how bad they are even if they have differences. Of course, you have to support why, which is what I do.

As far as post 62, here we go again.

I assume you're referring to the firing of Obama-era Inspector General Steve Linick who was investigating Pompeo? correct me if I'm wrong.

Yet, Obama did the same thing, firing Bush-era IG George Walprin, who was in the midst of investigation big-time Democrat monetary supporters in AmeriCorps.

You can't sound the alarms only about how wrong Trump was but then not allow discussion on previous presidents who have also done so. It's entirely misleading, and like I said, presents Trump as unprecedented when he's not. Many Democrats supported firing Walprin, but didn't support firing Linick. Why is it okay in situation A but not situation B? Well, we know why, politics, and that's what is important to note. The left acts as if it's acting on moral grounds when it does this, but it's merely political expediency, which isn't honorable or moral. I can crap on Joe Biden for being snarky and rude to certain reporters, as he has, but as someone who voted for Trump I'd be in bad faith to do so, as Trump did the same thing, even if he was facing an entire different, 100% angry and adversarial media. And, if you brought it up, I can't say "That's a whataboutism, just focus on Joe Biden". No, that's a sprint from consistent standards for indivudals.

No, I was actually referring to the firing of Comey. What is interesting though that when I put a standard of behaviour on Biden you immediately seem to balk at the idea that that standard would be applied to Trump. Coming out with an entire array of what you consider comparable instances.

As for what you are saying. I have a 9 year old daughter. One of the things I'm trying hard to teach her is that you are responsible for your own actions. If you have kids I assume you have tried to teach them the same.

Yet here you are saying that when it comes to politics that doesn't apply, as long as the other side is capable of drawing a comparison to something else even if that something else has an indeterminant amount of differences. Something that de facto would mean that accountability in politics doesn't exist since its not at all difficult to draw comparisons between just about anything.

No you have it all wrong. I'm a Conservative, thus I share your value of being responsible for your own actions.

If you say Trump is bad for X, and I say "Well, you didn't get made when Obama did it". I'm not saying Trump or Obama are correct, I'm saying you're not consistent, and your claim against Trump is political, not moral. Thus, it's not reputable or credible. To be credible, you'll admit Obama was wrong to do it, and not claim "whataboutism" when someone brings it up. It becomes damage control for one side, while a smear campaign on your opposition. Avoiding critique of your own isn't healthy or honest.

Saying you believe in personal responsibility and believe that whataboutism is valid are incompatible statements. Since a whataboutism by definition means responsibility is dependent on how other people take responsibility.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Saying you believe in personal responsibility and believe that whataboutism is valid are incompatible statements. Since a whataboutism by definition means responsibility is dependent on how other people take responsibility.

I'm not saying what you claim I'm saying.

You think that because I bring up Obama doing what Trump did means Trump is fine.

No, if the action is wrong, I oppose no matter who does it. I'm consistent, I have a standard. Me bringing up Obama, and the silence from Democrats/leftist when he did it, is not to exonerate Trump, but simply expose political bias by the finger-pointer. We can't unify if we only get mad when one side does things. Double standards divide the nation.

If you can't admit anything negative about those who you support, and deflect any reference to it as a "whatboutism", you're not in a debate, you're merely an activist.

 

[forkup]

Saying you believe in personal responsibility and believe that whataboutism is valid are incompatible statements. Since a whataboutism by definition means responsibility is dependent on how other people take responsibility.

I'm not saying what you claim I'm saying.

You think that because I bring up Obama doing what Trump did means Trump is fine.

No, if the action is wrong, I oppose no matter who does it. I'm consistent, I have a standard. Me bringing up Obama, and the silence from Democrats/leftist when he did it, is not to exonerate Trump, but simply expose political bias by the finger-pointer. We can't unify if we only get mad when one side does things. Double standards divide the nation.

If you can't admit anything negative about those who you support, and deflect any reference to it as a "whatboutism", you're not in a debate, you're merely an activist.

When you refer to a whataboutism as setting a standard you are saying exactly what I said you are. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either you believe in personal responsibility in wich case a standard flows from that, or you believe that a whataboutism is the way you do it.