For those that Ha ha'd

[*bfine32*]

(11-21-2018, 11:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Not duly noted yet?

Dill just operationally defined "appearance" in his post--the definition used by people criticizing FLOTUSes and those criticizing the critics, with supporting examples. You missed that? Thought maybe Dill had his own secret definition?

And no, given this definition, folks did not make fun of Melania's FLOTUS "appearance" in the sense that people criticized Michelle Obama's looks or those of the women Trump publicly degraded. They criticized her coat and with it her taste.

But generalize the definition of appearance, as you did, and sure, then "folks made fun of the FLOTUS' appearance."  And presto we have a grand equivocation. Misogynistic attacks on women's looks--some by the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD--are suddenly on the same level as jokes about Melania's coat by private citizens on twitter. She is bullied too. Both sides do it.

Not the first time you have responded to bad behavior of specific individuals by subsuming it under a more general category, opening the way to equivocations which negate quality and degree.

I'll shut up about this if you will agree that calling Michelle a "gorilla" or implying Fiorina's face is to ugly for public office is much worse than a tweet calling Melania's coat a "turkey"-- Even if both are criticisms of "visibility from the outside."  Or should Trump punch one of these twitter users in the mouth, as you suggested Cruz do Trump?

I didn't get if that was a yes or no.