Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[Dill]

(03-31-2024, 03:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: To second bolded, the way you operate in circular arguments really has me convinced that you focus more on the minutia than the bigger picture. (I apologize for the broad generalization, but I'm a big picture kinda guy)

Sorry I'm late getting back to this Sunset. Didn't want to leave hanging. Will answer your question about the "first bolded" in another post. .

We may be defining the "circular arguments" and the "big picture" differently.  
 
For me a circular argument is one in which the conclusion is surreptitiously used as evidence. Question begging. "The Bible is the word of God, and the proof is right here in the Bible." 
 
SSF sometimes calls my arguments "circular"--when I ask for evidence, don't get it, ask again, and he says he won't "repeat" himself. That may be going in circles, but its not the call for evidence which drives that, but the refusal to provide it. (You see yet another example of that "circle" in our exchange above: #s 88, 91, 95, 98, 100.)

In fact, my arguments are what most people call "linear," proceeding from premises/evidence, systematically, to a conclusion. They're often numbered to facilitate understanding. They build a structure which people can then prove or disprove. 
 
Concerning the second term, in the current Gaza war, for me the big picture is all the history and diplomacy which led up to it, and how it fits into US foreign policy. But I often support my claims about that war with evidence ("minutiae").

I wonder if by "big picture" you mean what I would call "general claims."  Sweeping or comprehensive statements about a subject, but without the minutiae.  I make such statements too. The minutiae doesn't come until I need to prove something. That sort of minutiae, by the way, is what keeps arguments from being circular, going by the definition above.

Anyway, I am very curious as to what you mean by my "circular" arguments. Can you point to an example?