Why People Voted For Trump – For Those Who Don't Get It

[mijopaalmc]

well. I guess we are going to have to take your word for it, then, because you have utterly failed to prove your bare assertion.

I already explained once:

Simply pointing out that another person engaged in the same behavior as another person it's not a tu quoque; declaring a conclusion to be false because someone engaged in the same behavior as another person is a tu quoque.

No one said Clinton was right in using the private mail server. The issue under discussion was the fact that Republicans don't trust Clinton because she used a private email server while they did trust a republican Secretary of State despite the fact that he also used a private email server.

 

[fishbob]

No, you don't get it at all. The OP is a list of things to be mad about. A list of things to not take anymore, from the left. You reject the conclusion, but you also dismiss everything that led to the conclusion. So no, you don't get it at all.

What is not to get?
The list ranges from mildly spun to filtered to completely inaccurate.
The resultant conclusion is bogus.

 

[The Big Dog]

I already explained once:

No one said Clinton was right in using the private mail server. The issue under discussion was the fact that Republicans don't trust Clinton because she used a private email server while they did trust a republican Secretary of State despite the fact that he also used a private email server.

Actually the topic under discussion was whether Hillary was trustworthy because:

The whole email server mess, pleading the fifth, immunity deals, destroying evidence, on and on and on...all handled terribly, especially from a PR perspective. This is a small paragraph, but the way that the server issue was handled was a huge part of her demise.

The biggest server question - why she decided to use her own personal server at all – was never given a believable response. We can think of plenty of sneaky reasons, but nothing else. That decision cost her big-time.

The response was lodged that:

It's just that one has to marvel at the blatant, unadulterated, shameless hypocrisy of Trump fans preaching at us about why they had to vote for him because they couldn't trust her.

Definition of tu quoque:

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/; Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Verdict? Classic Tu Quoque.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Actually the topic under discussion was whether Hillary was trustworthy because:



The response was lodged that:



Definition of tu quoque:



Verdict? Classic Tu Quoque.

And once again you demonstrate you have no idea what a tu quoque actually is.

Hint: Saying "you did it too" is only half of the fallacy and not a fallacy in itself.

 

[blutoski]

And once again you demonstrate you have no idea what a tu quoque actually is.

Hint: Saying "you did it too" is only half of the fallacy and not a fallacy in itself.

Particularly if the claim is that the subject in question is a hypocrite.

Revealing tu coquue is part of an effective argument toward proving hyporcisy, not even remotely fallacious.

 

[The Big Dog]

And once again you demonstrate you have no idea what a tu quoque actually is.

Hint: Saying "you did it too" is only half of the fallacy and not a fallacy in itself.

Oh dear... I assume again that we will have to take your word for it, hmmm?

TBD provides actual quotes and a definition.

In response, pure gainsay (I'd suggest that an argument by bare assertion is fallacious, but you'd probably say that "I" don't "understand" it either.)

Particularly if the claim is that the subject in question is a hypocrite.

Revealing tu coquue is part of an effective argument toward proving hyporcisy, not even remotely fallacious.

You think that the claim was "you are a hypocrite"? Really?

That is the most marvelous awful thing I have ever seen. Fantastic.

"You are a hypocrite," this is some fine critical thinking.

 

[sts60]

I'm not sure that claiming you were simply insulting the arguer is your go to argument here.

If you don't like being called out for hypocritical positions, don't take them.

Although, as I indicated previously, if you agree that Trump and Bush and Cheney deserve to be jailed along with Powell and Clinton, that would a consistent position. But you haven't answered that question yet.

Lets go to the tape!

<Insert rrrrrblrblrblrbl tape-rewinding sound, augmented by hawk screech>

The fact that Trump fans might be hypocrites does not at all suggest Hillary is someone one can trust.

It's a darn good thing, then, that I didn't say that. In fact, I pretty obviously said nothing of the sort. Perhaps you would like to address what I actually wrote.

The ruling: Classic Example of a Tu Quoque Fallacy

The Space-Dog Court overturns the lower Big Dog Court's ruling, and furthermore hands down a finding of Felony Assault on a Straw Man.

Also, in your apparent eagerness to lecture us on our logical shortcomings, you're trying to run past my actual point: the hypocrisy of saying Clinton is untrustworthy because of emails, therefore Trump is a better choice. My point still stands, regardless of how you personally answer that question.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Oh dear... I assume again that we will have to take your word for it, hmmm?

TBD provides actual quotes and a definition.

In response, pure gainsay (I'd suggest that an argument by bare assertion is fallacious, but you'd probably say that "I" don't "understand" it either.)

Perhaps you could point to where in your sources it says merely noting that to people have behaved similarly is fallacious.

 

[The Big Dog]

Also, in your apparent eagerness to lecture us on our logical shortcomings, you're also trying to run past my actual point: the hypocrisy of saying Clinton is untrustworthy because of emails, therefore Trump is a better choice. My point still stands, regardless of how you personally answer that question.

the hypocrisy of saying Clinton is untrustworthy because of emails, therefore Trump is a better choice.

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/; Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

You.... just went through all of that stuff only to double down on the fallacy?

That is *********** AMAZING!!!

Are you punking me? I mean you have to realize how fallacious that is, right? Of course, it is so bloody obvious.

 

[Civet]

Since I've been eligible to vote:

1996: Clinton (D)
2000: Bush (R)
2004: Bush (R)
2008: Obama (D)
2012: Romney (R)
2016: Trump (R)

I consider myself a conservative but not an idealogue hence my ability to vote for non (R) candidates.

That being said, the OP is 100% accurate. And the morons on here STILL don't get it. Still calling us bigots, idiots, and whatnot.

Some have bought into the koolaid so bad they REALLY believe that Trump is a white nationalist halfwit and that half the country are racist bigots. No, like REALLY believe that.

You've very much the type of person I'd like to hear more from. Was there any way a non-Hillary mainstream Democrat could have gotten your vote this past election? Were there particular aspects of Trump's platform or rhetoric you found especially appealing?

 

[sts60]

the hypocrisy of saying Clinton is untrustworthy because of emails, therefore Trump is a better choice.

You.... just went through all of that stuff only to double down on the fallacy?

That is *********** AMAZING!!!

Are you punking me? I mean you have to realize how fallacious that is, right? Of course, it is so bloody obvious.

If I was asserting that claiming Clinton was untrustworthy was wrong because of hypocrisy, that would be a tu quoque fallacy. As I already pointed out, I have said nothing of the sort.

Pointing out the hypocrisy itself says nothing about whether your position is correct or not, and is not a fallacy.

Do you want to keep on waving your arms and yelling about something I didn't say, or would you like to address the actual issue?

 

[mijopaalmc]

No one said that Powell's use of a private e-mail server and Trump's destruction of evidence justifies voting for Clinton. They claimed that justification for voting for Trump because of Clinton's use of a private e-mail mage her untrustworthy was suspect because those using the justification seemed to be disregarding untrustworthy behavior in the candidate they did vote for.

The fallacy in tu quoque is in dismissing the conclusion as false, not in the dismissing the justification as invalid.

 

[The Big Dog]

If I was asserting that claiming Clinton was untrustworthy was wrong because of hypocrisy, that would be a tu quoque fallacy. As I already pointed out, I have said nothing of the sort.

Pointing out the hypocrisy itself says nothing about whether your position is correct or not, and is not a fallacy.

Do you want to keep on waving your arms and yelling about something I didn't say, or would you like to address the actual issue?

The hilarious thing is that I am actually giving your argument more credit than it deserves. Right now you are arguing that it was merely name calling, while I at least am asserting it was a form of ad hominem.

Take a gander:

http://bennorton.com/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement-and-internet-arguments/

You are at the name calling level, and I am explaining that you are one level above that

The suggestion that your "point" is that they are hypocrites is sheer name calling.

So you got that going for ya!

 

[Donal]

So, ya, we're talking about why Trump supporters are crying because people point out they are either racist or willingly support racism.

Its kind of like listening to someone trying to prove Michael Bay is some sort of cinematic genius the rest of us are too stupid to comprehend. No, he just some hack who appeals to the base instincts of his audience and makes millions of his shoddy product. You like what he's selling, even when you know its crap. Its as simple as that. There's no in depth analysis needed

 

[The Big Dog]

They claimed that justification for voting for Trump because of Clinton's use of a private e-mail mage her untrustworthy was suspect because those using the justification seemed to be disregarding untrustworthy behavior in the candidate they did vote for.

That is practically a word for word definition of a tu quoque fallacy.

I really find this discussion fascinating.

 

[mijopaalmc]

That is practically a word for word definition of a tu quoque fallacy.

I really find this discussion fascinating.

It is not a tu quoque to question the consistency of one's reasoning. It is a tu quoque to assert that a conclusion is necessarily false because of the putative inconsistency.

 

[Belz...]

I saw one thread today, among many, asking "What motivated Trump voters?"

Someone responded:

"Hillary motivated voters"

Hillary motivated Republicans to vote Republicans? That would be surprising, but if that's true, that's still the right-wing's fault for inventing such an evil media alter-ego of her.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think this summed up the election better than anything else.

Yep. Thin skinned crybabies.

(Original reference was to OP saying that he was tired of being called racist, etc.)



In my opinion, no. They really are tired of it, and they probably ought to be.

Donald Trump called for ending illegal immigration, including potentially deporting illegals, and instead of debating whether or not that ought to be done, the general reaction was "Racist!"

In general, anything that might negatively affect black people: "Racist!"

Anythign that might negatively affect any ethnic minority: "Racist!"

Anything that might negatively affect (some) women: "Sexist!"

And of course there's "Homophobic!" and "Transphobic!"

We could go over and over all the outrage threads that have been posted over the years, debating whether a single comment, or wearing a single shirt, should outweigh a history of behavior on a career path, but a lot of people really are tired of it, and ought to be.

We changed so much of our society so quickly, especially related to sexuality and gender roles, that I was amazed at how much happened in such a short time. And yet, it was never enough. I wondered when the backlash would happen and what it would look like. Well, it happened on November 8, and it looked like Donald Trump.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is not a tu quoque to question the consistency of one's reasoning. It is a tu quoque to assert that a conclusion is necessarily false because of the putative inconsistency.

We have made so much progress!

Yes it is a tu quoque "to question the consistency of one's reasoning" or in other words "to intend to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument... by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently." Look at the definition.

What you appear to be saying is that an insult is not a fallacy, which is fine, but then you are conceding that it is mere name calling and then what is the point?

 

[mijopaalmc]

We have made so much progress!

Which is a strange assertion given that d neither of us ha changed or positions.

Yes it is a tu quoque "to question the consistency of one's reasoning" or in other words "to intend to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument... by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently." Look at the definition.

What you appear to be saying is that an insult is not a fallacy, which is fine, but then you are conceding that it is mere name calling and then what is the point?

Since when is pointing our that one is reasoning inconsistently an insult?