• PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    …why is this so common on Lemmy?

    You have accused poor li’l Tim about ignoring stuff and making a bad faith argument…but you’re ignoring context.

    Tech Lover Tim is just explaining that, while it’s just blue states for now, the stunts are to force the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether those states can ban Trump from appearing on the ballot for his roll in leading an insurrection according to the 14th Amendment.

    It’s literally just an explanation. The last bit of their interpretation of the consequence of the Supreme Court’s lack of ruling derives from that explanation.

    In turn, your response is overly aggressive by assuming Tim is making a slippery slope argument with a moral quality you clearly find disagreeable. But you’ve ignored the explanation altogether. It’s like you isolated the conclusion and, regardless of the premises, tried to claim it’s morally depraved.

    The nature of the conclusion derives from the premises! Where’s the moral depravity in the explanation? And why didn’t you show that work before asserting that they’re arguing in bad faith?