Do you see any of those tweets you screen shotted making a defense of trump?
-
-
Replying to @drethelin
While they don't do it directly, it is the underlying implication. Why bring up the moral inconsistency of the protesters, and the worse crimes of other dictators, if not to defend Trump?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Why are you attacking Trump supporters if not to defend Hillary? The obvious answer is you think it’s valuable to point out fallacies/immorality in people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drethelin
I am not defending Hillary because I am not deflecting any attacks on Hillary. The tweeters I screenshotted are, in fact, deflecting the attacks on Trump. I'm pointing out how the protesters' moral inconsistency is essentially being used to dismiss charges against Trump.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
You’re weasel wording with your use of phrases like “underlying implication” and “essentially”. If attacking trump protestors is defending trump, attacking trump defenders as you call them is defending trump’s enemies.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drethelin
Incorrect. People are only tweeting about the protesters because they are protesting Trump. We know nothing else about them other than their opposition to Trump. Many of them may even have protested Erdogan. *This* is what makes the quoted attacks on them a defence of Trump.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @drethelin
It is obvious that the screenshotted tweets are deflections, as they appeal to the *assumed* (im)moral character of the protesters, without addressing their actual statements. On the other hand, I point out, using the tweeters very words, that they are guilty of logical fallacies
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Again, you only do so by making assumptions about their logical argument that they never state. “It is obvious” is another set of weasel words.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @drethelin @G_S_Bhogal
“This is a logical fallacy” is only an appropriate rebuttal to a concrete logical argument someone has actually made. Not to the argument you get to craft for yourself and attribute to them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Actually, a statement can also be discredited if its assumptions or implications comprise a logical fallacy, as they do here. For instance, to suggest that it is "insane" to protest Trump if you haven't also protested Mugabe results in a logical fallacy.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.