I’d like for you to explain exactly what you meant in your original post at the Very Top because I believe you’re a hypocrite in your responses thereafter.Hey @RollinRural, why the dislike?
Your argument just didn't add up to me. That doesn't mean it's not allowed to add up to you. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or make you feel lesser, buddy.
Well, first off, its an absurd counter-example.What was this supposed to mean?
Yeah... Perhaps the better strategy would have been to downplay the issue and tell his rural constituents they were idiots for wanting rural delivery.
I disagreed with your implication of Hawley's insincerity. Thus, I responded with an absurd counter-example, highlighting Senator Hawley revealing your alleged insincerity to his constituents through personal attacks against their interests of rural service.
Thanks for clarifying!Well, first off, its an absurd counter-example.
A major purpose of an absurd counter-example is to highlight the absurdity of a reciprocal position, if that reciprocal position were ever accepted.
When you wrote:
I disagreed with your implication of Hawley's insincerity. Thus, I responded with an absurd counter-example, highlighting Senator Hawley revealing your alleged insincerity to his constituents through personal attacks against their interests of rural service.
I wouldn't recommend Hawley actually do this, because it would be absurd. However, my absurd counterexample illustrates the weakness of your argument that "the entire thing is just for PR so [Hawley] can get re-elected." while remaining consistent with your charge of insincerity.
I'm not convinced that Missouri's choice for senator is solely based on its citizens' access to postal services, but maybe those Missouri folks really, reeeeealllly like their mail.
I don't know if it will be taken up for a vote or not. None of that choice is up to me.
In the sense of "saving his rural constituents lives" I'm unaware if he actually expressed that, but I wouldn't be surprised if "medicine delivery" was mentioned; and I believe medicines can save lives more effectively when delivered verses when not delivered.
While I hope this helps ease your mind, please note that whether or not you think I am a hypocrite has no effect on my resolve, particularly when no support exists for your claim. You're certainly free to believe however you wish though, and I will cheer you on for taking full advantage of your freedom to do so.
Begging the question, inferred, associated, implied, expressed, counter-example, absurdity, reciprocal. Is there a cliffnotes that covers terms like those? It takes me some time to think through what is meant by each word, but I like the way the words explain what is being said.It seems that you may have inferred a meaning that didn't exist, then associated that inference as though it were not an inference but was implied.
Even if what you claim was implied was actually expressed, it wouldn't have made sense. A senator cannot single-handedly halt rural delivery, nor can they sincerely follow through with any threat to do so. Additionally, if a congressman tried making such threats to halt rural delivery, his party counterparts would have a field day with it.
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion you did, but I suppose I don't have to. Thanks for trying to explain though.
Few think - most emote.
