re: #442 Slumbering Behemoth

I’m coming from the perspective that MBF and “false equivalency” are similar.

As in this hypothetical…

#1: “President Grok has violated our rights by denying certain defendants a right to a jury of their peers (which should considered true for this hypothetical).

#2: “So what, President Grog is now violating our rights by not allowing public schools to feed our children high grade plutonium (which should be considered false for this hypothetical).

That’s my perspective on the MBF, anyway.

At any rate, nice as always to bullshit with you, Sergey. I’m clocking out.

G’nite all.

But false equivalency doesn’t presuppose falseness of basic facts, only the falseness of comparison. The facts may as well be true.

Anyway, returning to my initial point. “Truth is no defense” in rhetorics. Since we’re dealing with rhetorical devices, what also matters is intent (as well as focus).

One of my favorite examples of this is someone saying during a speech: “And did you know that Mr. X is a [insert an ethnonym here]”. Mr. X may, as well, belong to the specified ethnic group, but, obviously, that’s not all there is to it. We will also why ask why this fact was brought up, and why there is a focus on it. The answers will depend on the context.

So it is here. It is not surprising that when DF is asked about why such and such legal anti-choice atrocity happened, he will unfurl an old newspaper and point out that it happened because such and such Democratic politicians were beyond this initiative. DF’s intent is to answer the question, even if his answer may be colored by politics.

If, however, during a discussion of GOP’s specific anti-choice initiatives someone chimes in, out of the blue, with information about Democratic anti-choice outliers from another case, the fact that such claims would correspond to truth plays no role, because the intent is to balance the negative portrait of the GOP with negative facts about some D’s. That would be MBF.