In today’s news and poll of the day - part 2

trump.,,

“ And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

Only a dimwit would not automatically think of bleach as a disinfectant. Unfortunately bigger dimwits took dumpster don suggestion of an injection of a disinfectant. And the most commonly available “disinfectant” is bleach.

What a dick.,,.

They are cowards, afraid of push back from their lies.

I saw this and two things popped into my mind





First pixiechick

Second the term “false equivalency”.

So I asked my friend google and found this article that provides a pretty accurate term to those who continue their unfavorable comparisons of what the Democrats are doing to that of trump & the current crop Republican elected officials have done or are doing.

Don’t get me wrong the Democrats are no where near perfect.  They can pull some pretty dumb doozies but nothing even close to comparison as trump & the current crop of Republican elected officials have done and are continuing to do.

From Effectiviology…link

“False Equivalence: The Problem with Unreasonable Comparisons”

”False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them. For example, a false equivalence is saying that cats and dogs are the same animal, since they’re both mammals and have a tail.

False equivalences, which generally exaggerate similarities and ignore important differences, can be used to equate a wide range of things, including individuals, groups, actions, or arguments, either implicitly or explicitly. Accordingly, false equivalences are frequently used in debates on various topics, especially when it comes to suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between two or more things that are being equated.

What makes an equivalence false

An equivalence is considered false when it’s fallacious in some way, meaning that there is an issue with the reasoning that’s used to explain why the things under consideration are equivalent to one another. The most common issues that make an equivalence false are the following:

The equivalence exaggerates the degree of similarity between the things being equated. For example, this could involve stating that two people share a certain personality trait, while ignoring the fact that they only share certain aspects of this trait but not others.

The equivalence exaggerates the importance of the similarity between the things being equated. For example, this could involve focusing on a personality trait that two people share, while ignoring the fact that many other people also share this trait.

The equivalence ignores important differences between the things being equated. For example, this could involve mentioning a way in which two people are similar to one another, while ignoring the many ways in which they are different.

The equivalence ignores differences in orders of magnitude between the things being equated. For example, this could involve equating different acts that two people performed, and focusing on the fact that these acts are conceptually similar, despite the fact that they’re widely different in terms of their impact.

Note that there is generally some subjectivity involved in determining whether an equivalent is false or not. For example, in a situation where there is a difference in the order of magnitude, in terms of impact, of two acts that are being equated, the person presenting the equivalence might believe that this difference is small enough that the equivalence is reasonable, while someone else might argue that the difference renders the equivalence false.

In such situations, it’s up to each party in the discussion to argue either in favor or against the equivalence. Specifically, the burden of proof initially rests with the person who proposes an equivalence, meaning that they must provide proper support for the equivalence. Then, their opponent has a burden of proof if they claim that the equivalence is false, meaning that they must provide proper support for their argument against the equivalence.
Because false equivalences are so widely used, it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about the false equivalence fallacy, see examples of how it’s used, and understand what you can do in order to counter it as effectively as possible.

&

How to respond to a false equivalence


As we saw above, the issue with false equivalences is that they incorrectly suggest that two (or more) things are equivalent, in a situation where that’s not the case. Accordingly, the main approach that you should use in order to counter this fallacious reasoning is to demonstrate the issue with the equivalence that’s being presented. You can do this in various ways, including the following:

Show that the similarities between the things being equated are exaggerated, overemphasized, or oversimplified.

Highlight the differences between the things being equated, and explain why these differences are more significant than the related similarities.

If the similarity between the things being equated is flawed due to a significant difference in terms of order magnitude, point this out and explain why it’s an issue.

Provide counterexamples which, under the current classification, would also be considered equivalent to the things being equated, but which contradict the point that the person using the false equivalence is trying to make.

Ask your opponent to justify why they believe that their equivalence is valid, and then demonstrate the issues with the reasoning that they provide.

Note that, as we saw earlier, the false equivalence fallacy is often used in conjunction with other logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques. For example, this can involve a misleading representation of the two sides in the equivalence, through the use of cherry-picking, with the aim of making one side appear more positive and the other more negative than they really are.

When this happens, you will generally benefit from addressing the particular issues with these additional fallacies. How you do this will depend on the fallacy in question, as different fallacies are countered in different ways. Nevertheless, one course of action that is effective in most cases is to simply point out the logical flaw in the fallacious argument, and explain why it invalidates that argument.

Finally, when responding to a false equivalence, there are several important caveats that you must keep in mind:

Not every comparison is an equivalence; it’s possible to compare things without suggesting that they are equal to one another.

Not every equivalence is a false equivalence; in many cases, an equivalence may be entirely reasonable.

Not every false equivalence is intentional; in many cases, people might use a false equivalence without realizing that there is an issue with it.

Equivalence is subjective; it’s not always possible to clearly determine whether a certain equivalence is false or not.

How to avoid using false equivalences

To avoid using false equivalences, you should make sure that whenever you equate two or more things with one another, you have proper justification as to why the things in question are equivalent, based on relevant criteria.

If necessary, you should explicitly explain why you believe that the equivalence in question is reasonable. This will help you ensure that your equivalence is indeed reasonable, and help you demonstrate this to the people that you’re talking to.

Furthermore, keep in mind that you can use the same techniques that you would use if you thought someone else was using a false equivalence, in order to ensure that you’re not using one yourself. For example, if you’re unsure about whether an equivalence that you’re thinking about is reasonable or not, you could attempt to highlight the differences between the things that you’re equating, and ask yourself whether the equivalence still holds.

Finally, you can help address some potential issues with your proposed equivalences by being upfront about them, and using appropriate language when presenting the equivalences. For example, if you’re equating two actions that are similar in nature but whose outcomes are different in terms of orders of magnitude, you could address this directly, and explain why the equivalence is still sound. Doing this can turn an equivalence that would otherwise be fallacious into an argument that is generally viewed as reasonable.”