Ah, it seems I had my hostage crises mixed up. For some reason when I read “arms-for-hostages deal” in the past, I had assumed it was the hostages in Iran.
Also, the arrangements started in 1981, it just didn’t become public knowledge until 86. Your point stands about it not influencing the 1980 election, but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter. Especially since it was done specifically to fund an anti-socialist militia in Nicaragua.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter.
I’m not sure when or where exactly I made the claim that Reagan was no worse than Carter. Clearly, I must have said it, since so many people keep trying to argue against it to me, but I just can’t seem to find it in anything I actually wrote. Maybe you could point me to it?
What I do recall saying was that Carter’s policies were neoliberal and that neoliberalism is not the answer to our problems. But I must be misremembering.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
The reason why we’re here is not because we failed to chose Carter over Reagan, but because those were the two choices we were stuck with, one neoliberal who lies and one neoliberal who tells the truth. Since neoliberalism fucking sucks, most people are going to go for the one that lies and says it’ll be good, which is why Reagan beat Carter in 1980 with 10x the electoral votes.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close. And the main part I was countering was about ascribing the reason for the electoral outcome solely to their differing levels of honesty
Anyway, this is exactly what I was thinking of:
After the release of the hostages on January 20, 1981, minutes after Reagan’s inauguration, some charged that the Reagan campaign had made a secret deal with the Iranian government whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until after Reagan was elected and inaugurated.[14] Gary Sick, member of the U.S. National Security Council under Presidents Ford and Carter (before being relieved of his duties weeks into Reagan’s term),[21] made the accusation in a New York Times editorial[22] in the run-up to the 1992 election.
Abolhassan Banisadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated “that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Tehran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980”, asserting that “by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran’s ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages’ release would be delayed until after the election so as to prevent President Carter’s re-election.”
Thank you. My bad for conflating it with Iran-Contra, though. I wasn’t alive at the time.
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Honestly impressive that you managed to miss the point so completely.
I never suggested that the differences between those two pairs was in any way similar or equivalent. The point is that the term “both sides-ism” is nonsense.
The only way it’s “disengenous” is if you don’t understand it and completely misinterpret it.
How is it relevant to the discussion if they’re not “in any way similar or equivalent”?
Do you not understand how logic works?
Imagine a conversation, like,
A: “Everyone in Al Qaida is Muslim, this guy is a Muslim, therefore, this guy is in Al Qaida.”
B: “That’s like saying all chickens have two legs, Socrates has two legs, therefore, Socretes is a chicken.”
A: “What? Socretes isn’t a chicken at all, while Al Qaida is a Muslim organization. It’s a completely different comparison, they’re not similar or equivalent.”
B: “I never said they were similar or equivalent.”
A: “Then how is it relevant to the discussion?”
The differences between Trump and Vance is not equivalent to the the differences between Reagan and Carter. The differences between Socrates and a chicken are not equivalent to the differences between Al Qaida and Islam. They don’t have to be equivalent to demonstrate that the logic is flawed.
Can’t wait for you to completely misinterpret this one too.
Yes, I do understand logic. Better than you do, apparently. Let’s break this down.
Imagine a conversation, like,
A: “Everyone in Al Qaida is Muslim, this guy is a Muslim, therefore, this guy is in Al Qaida.”
Logical formula being made here:
“If A, then B. B, therefore A.”
Error: affirming the consequent; invalid structure.
B: “That’s like saying all chickens have two legs, Socrates has two legs, therefore, Socretes is a chicken.”
"That’s like saying “If C, then D. D, therefore C.”
Correctly identifies the fallacy.
A: “What? Socretes isn’t a chicken at all, while Al Qaida is a Muslim organization. It’s a completely different comparison, they’re not similar or equivalent.”
“What? Not C, but A. {A→B, A←B} ≠ {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: makes an unjustifiably leap with no real connection, then fails to understand the parralellism between the two arguments’ (invalid) logical structures.
B: “I never said they were similar or equivalent.”
“I never said {A→B, A←B} = {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: unsound premise. You did. You implied it by using “C→D, C←D” as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of “A→B, A←B”.
A: “Then how is it relevant to the discussion?”
Again, fails to grasp the logical fallacy at play here, because you backpedaled instead of calling it “affirming the consequent” or “reductio ad absurdum,” both of which would require demonstrating that the two arguments are indeed equivalent in form.
They don’t have to be equivalent to demonstrate that the logic is flawed.
Yes, they do. If you want to offer one bad argument as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of another argument, then the the two arguments need to be logically equivalent, meaning they need to have the same logical structure and their premises need to be equally sound.
Which was not the case in our argument above. Therefore, contrasting Trump with Vance is not a valid reductio ad absurdum to contrasting Reagan with Carter.
Can’t wait for you to completely misinterpret this one too.
Can’t wait to watch that smug grin slowly fade from your face.
Ah, it seems I had my hostage crises mixed up. For some reason when I read “arms-for-hostages deal” in the past, I had assumed it was the hostages in Iran.
Also, the arrangements started in 1981, it just didn’t become public knowledge until 86. Your point stands about it not influencing the 1980 election, but it’s not exactly points in favor of Reagan, or him being no worse than Carter. Especially since it was done specifically to fund an anti-socialist militia in Nicaragua.
Fairly certain I remember reading about him conspiring with the nation’s adversaries in the lead-up to that election too though, but maybe it was a separate scandal…
I’m not sure when or where exactly I made the claim that Reagan was no worse than Carter. Clearly, I must have said it, since so many people keep trying to argue against it to me, but I just can’t seem to find it in anything I actually wrote. Maybe you could point me to it?
What I do recall saying was that Carter’s policies were neoliberal and that neoliberalism is not the answer to our problems. But I must be misremembering.
What you are thinking of is known as an “October Surprise.”
For me it was in response to this:
Not exactly the same thing as “both sides” -ism, but verrry close. And the main part I was countering was about ascribing the reason for the electoral outcome solely to their differing levels of honesty
Anyway, this is exactly what I was thinking of:
Thank you. My bad for conflating it with Iran-Contra, though. I wasn’t alive at the time.
Both sides were objectively neoliberals enacting neoliberal policy. “Both sides-ism” is a vacuous term. Sometimes two people have a trait in common, understanding that objective fact is not an “-ism.” Imagine if I tried to paint JD Vance as being significantly different from Trump, and when someone said they both sucked I dismissed it as “both sides-ism.” Maybe it’s true that one is worse than the other, but between Trump and Vance, it’s undeniable that both sides are bad.
Comparing “Carter & Reagan” diffs to “Trump & Vance” diffs has got to be a disingenuous argument.
You didn’t really expect me to bite that obvious bait, did you?
Honestly impressive that you managed to miss the point so completely.
I never suggested that the differences between those two pairs was in any way similar or equivalent. The point is that the term “both sides-ism” is nonsense.
Why would I want to catch a disingenuous point?
Then why did you say it? How is it relevant to the discussion if they’re not “in any way similar or equivalent”?
The only way it’s “disengenous” is if you don’t understand it and completely misinterpret it.
Do you not understand how logic works?
Imagine a conversation, like,
A: “Everyone in Al Qaida is Muslim, this guy is a Muslim, therefore, this guy is in Al Qaida.”
B: “That’s like saying all chickens have two legs, Socrates has two legs, therefore, Socretes is a chicken.”
A: “What? Socretes isn’t a chicken at all, while Al Qaida is a Muslim organization. It’s a completely different comparison, they’re not similar or equivalent.”
B: “I never said they were similar or equivalent.”
A: “Then how is it relevant to the discussion?”
The differences between Trump and Vance is not equivalent to the the differences between Reagan and Carter. The differences between Socrates and a chicken are not equivalent to the differences between Al Qaida and Islam. They don’t have to be equivalent to demonstrate that the logic is flawed.
Can’t wait for you to completely misinterpret this one too.
Yes, I do understand logic. Better than you do, apparently. Let’s break this down.
Logical formula being made here:
“If A, then B. B, therefore A.”
Error: affirming the consequent; invalid structure.
"That’s like saying “If C, then D. D, therefore C.”
Correctly identifies the fallacy.
“What? Not C, but A. {A→B, A←B} ≠ {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: makes an unjustifiably leap with no real connection, then fails to understand the parralellism between the two arguments’ (invalid) logical structures.
“I never said {A→B, A←B} = {C→D, C←D}.”
Error: unsound premise. You did. You implied it by using “C→D, C←D” as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of “A→B, A←B”.
Again, fails to grasp the logical fallacy at play here, because you backpedaled instead of calling it “affirming the consequent” or “reductio ad absurdum,” both of which would require demonstrating that the two arguments are indeed equivalent in form.
Yes, they do. If you want to offer one bad argument as a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate the invalidity of another argument, then the the two arguments need to be logically equivalent, meaning they need to have the same logical structure and their premises need to be equally sound.
Which was not the case in our argument above. Therefore, contrasting Trump with Vance is not a valid reductio ad absurdum to contrasting Reagan with Carter.
Can’t wait to watch that smug grin slowly fade from your face.