Motivation and context matters because if you don’t pay attention to them you risk ending up an accessory to some asshole’s motte-and-bailey fallacy in progress.
You are now stating that the argument is not good, but in fact a fallacy. You are thus yourself, ironically, doing the fallacy you are talking about others doing. You have moved from the position of “dont engage with good arguments or criticism of they come from a republican” and are now pretending your position is “don’t engage with bad arguments from republicans.”
Then that would not be a good argument, which they therefore would not find reason to take seriously. Youre doing an actual motte-and-bailey yourself right now.
The “motte” part, by definition, is a good argument. It’s only when they spring the “bailey” on you that the ulterior motive behind getting you to agree to it becomes clear.
The motte is just a reasonable position. It is also not a trap that get sprung. It is a place one retreats to when pushed on ones actual position.
The motte: “dont engage with bad critique from republicans”
The Bailey: “Don’t engage with critique no matter the quality, if it comes from republicans”
Now you’re just playing obtuse, because you, like the annoying rat you are, find it easy to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
First of all, I said do pay attention, not “don’t.” Second, no, paying attention and choosing not to engage are not, in fact, equivalent. Why are you misrepresenting me?
Motivation and context matters because if you don’t pay attention to them you risk ending up an accessory to some asshole’s motte-and-bailey fallacy in progress.
You are now stating that the argument is not good, but in fact a fallacy. You are thus yourself, ironically, doing the fallacy you are talking about others doing. You have moved from the position of “dont engage with good arguments or criticism of they come from a republican” and are now pretending your position is “don’t engage with bad arguments from republicans.”
But that would be obvious in the stupidity of the criticism
Not if the part you’re responding to is the motte and you’re ignoring the motivation and context!
Then that would not be a good argument, which they therefore would not find reason to take seriously. Youre doing an actual motte-and-bailey yourself right now.
The “motte” part, by definition, is a good argument. It’s only when they spring the “bailey” on you that the ulterior motive behind getting you to agree to it becomes clear.
The motte is just a reasonable position. It is also not a trap that get sprung. It is a place one retreats to when pushed on ones actual position.
The motte: “dont engage with bad critique from republicans”
The Bailey: “Don’t engage with critique no matter the quality, if it comes from republicans”
I didn’t say “don’t engage.” I said “pay attention.” Now who’s making the fallacy?
Now you’re just playing obtuse, because you, like the annoying rat you are, find it easy to retreat to a discussion of semantics.
“Dont pay attention to” and “dont engage with” is the same action in this case, which you are well aware of.
First of all, I said do pay attention, not “don’t.” Second, no, paying attention and choosing not to engage are not, in fact, equivalent. Why are you misrepresenting me?