I never asked for "citations on opinions or conclusions". You said "Bush was treated worse, as is virtually every Republican candidate, but in completely different specific ways." I asked you to provide specific examples of the specific ways you mentioned. Very different than what you portrayed me doing.
That's a quote of an opinion or conclusion, you can tell from the word "worse," which is a comparative term. Asking me why I believe it is a respectful thing to do. And I responded with exactly why I believed it for Bush v. Gore. The fact that you attribute a higher value of "worse" to Gore because you think the
way he was mistreated was worse, and I place a higher value of "worse" to Bush because I think the intensity, scope and scale of mistreatment favors him, is a divergence of opinion.
Is that what you think you did? Asked me to explain my beliefs? Cause honestly, your first posts were a demand that I provide documented proof from the time period of the election (ie 16 years ago) that Bush was mistreated in exactly the same manner, with the implication that if it was not at the same or a greater scale it would not be proof of the "claim."
If you didn't know what any specific ways were, why exactly did you say they existed? Is it just your opinion that they exist, but you have never actually seen an example?
I specifically addressed your point. Even pointed to one example of what I was talking about, ie that Bush was hammered for the ridiculous things he said but clearly didn't mean. Which is exactly the kind of statement, unless you dispute that it was true, that is evidence of why I could believe what I do and say what I say on a meta-claim about who was treated worse by the media.
"A failure to prove an unprovable opinion is claimed to be proof of the opposite unprovable opinion". And who might have claimed that? Not me. Once again, you misrepresent what I did. I will ask you to show me the quote to support your accusation, but you may just do what you did last time - say I won't believe it if you show me, so why waste your time. Or claim the above is just an opinion, with no need to support it.
What else where you doing with your attempt to burden shift then? And you've already more than once asserted that what you've labeled my "claims" should not be believed unless I provide the evidence you deem satisfactory.
I could live with the idea that we call them "just an opinion," if you held yourself to the same standard, but you don't logically distinguish between your opinions and your facts, see below for an example.
What actually happened was I pointed out that Gore had it worse because he was mocked for things he didn't do (a statement supported by the Vanity Fair article, and the original sources), and Bush was mocked for things he did do (a statement which you essentially agreed with). No mention of your lack of proof as proof of my argument. No mention of proof of my argument. Just sources and reasoning.
No one disputed what happened to Gore, that's not proof of your claim. The difference here is nothing but reasoning and opinion. You have an opinion that what happened to Gore is subjectively worse that's all. You've provided no more proof of that than I have.
"There's no way to prove the subjective idea that 'Gore had it worse' any more than there is to prove the subjective idea that 'Bush had it worse.'" Very true. However, I supported my argument with the statement above, things done vs. things not done, etc. There was reasoning and there were sources. Your argument, ahem, opinion, was supported by, literally, absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Again, this why I find this conversation with you annoying. You didn't support your argument with any fact. The fact in question was not in dispute. Or to put it another way, whether or not Gore even existed, is not a fact on which the essence of your claim, "I believe that calling out someone for something stupid that they did not do or say is harsh treatment. Calling out someone for something stupid that they did do or say is not harsh treatment, it is journalism," is dependent. Accordingly it is
not support for your claim, it's only support for exactly what I said - they were treated harshly in different ways.
You do understand the logic here right?
What I "proved" in the Planned Parenthood thread, IIRC, was as follows:
Someone claimed that there was no expert testimony about whether the reimbursable costs were reasonable, when in fact four experts were consulted who said it was reasonable. I didn't prove the costs were reasonable, but I proved that the claim that no such testimony existed was false.
I agree that's the strawman you tried to argue against. Of course, you misunderstood the actual argument and responded with a fallacious appeal to authority as a result.
The argument was that only one person knew the actual costs, and everyone else was speculating. Pointing to "experts" who were themselves speculating isn't a fact that is on point.
Maybe if you're going to claim that people are mistreating you, you should refrain from simultaneously attacking them with your backhand.
