Trump mocks Elizabeth Warren’s heritage AND #metoo

[Dill]

(02-06-2019, 08:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfa Wrote: No one argued this or any thread should not focus on Warren.  My point was that lying attributed to candidates for the same office eventually requires a type of comparison of candidates and lies which is neither whataboutism nor bothsidesism nor--I shall now add--"the exact same hypocrisy" or whatever.  And the comparative requirement is not limited to only Warren and those running for Democratic nomination.  It's a "Trump vs Warren" comparison any time a voter wishes to make it so.

Ahh, a superb counter, "the argument is valid because I deem it to be thus!"

Are you familiar with terms like "validity" and "fallacy," at least as they are used in logic? I have wondered on this before.

As far as I know, there are no thought police to prevent voters from comparing any candidates they want, anytime they want. And no logical obstacle.  So I could neither deem nor undeem the "validity" of that statement, however much I wanted to.  It was an observation. If it's not "valid" then you should be able to refute it, right?

This is more like "deeming it thus": "It is not a Trump compared to Warren situation until Warren wins the Democratic nomination."    
Also, a little kryptonite for the record: making ANY unsupported claim you honestly don't care to support is simply saying "I deem it to be thus."  

(02-06-2019, 08:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfa Wrote: Degree is always subject to interpretation, to claim otherwise would be a logical fallacy.  Of course, using your previously expressed, "the argument is valid because I deem it to be thus" standard this would be perfectly true.  Others may prefer a more insightful and nuanced approach, but to each their own.

"Degree is always subject to interpretation" = "Degree is completely subjective."

Do those who prefer "insightful and nuanced" approaches see these statements as equivalent?