I apologize for being an idiot and taking way too long to figure out what you were saying.
She did lose because she moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up.
We're saying you don't understand cause and effect.
You are saying A (moving left) caused B (losing).
If A didn't happen, then B also would not have happened. Therefore, "if she had stayed to the right, she would have won."
Edit: I think I figured out what I've got wrong. If I rephrase what you said, then it makes more sense:
"She did lose because the voters did not show up, even though she moved a little left."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/despite-in-spite-of/
I feel you are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say, this example would be more accurate:
"The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they protested anyway despite her moving a little bit left."
I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.
What I think you're trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I'm completely in agreement here.
If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.
Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.
Are you saying that if Hillary had rejected the map room proposal, then left wing voters would have turned out to vote for her?
That's ridiculous to think that moving further right would have got more left voters to turn out to vote.
Meaning the map room proposal had no effect on left wing voters, because it wasn't enough. It did not cause them to protest.
No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.
Although I'll admit it's a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don't vote because we think they're not left enough.
Okay, it sounds like you're saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it "wasn't enough." Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.
But you did say she moved "too far" left - if it was her itsy bitsy move left that caused non-voter protests, that is literally by definition "too far."
But you're misidentifying the cause here, while somehow still ending up at the right conclusion.
She very well may have lost because of non-voter protestors, but it was because she wasn't far enough left. And if Hillary had actually moved further left to win those protestors' votes, she would have lost the center vote. And Biden may very well lose for the same reason, so the lesson should be if you don't want Trump to win, then don't protest vote simply because Biden isn't far enough left.
Right, which is why people are confused. Fish likely meant 3.3 miles / kWh, but that comes out to 20 miles for one hour of charge. But the fact they said just under 2 miles of range actually correlates with their 3.3kWh/mile statement, but no one has ever heard of an EV with efficiency that terrible.
I'm still a little confused, wouldn't 6kwh provide roughly 12 to 24 miles of driving range?
Thanks, I had considered linking a reference, but I didn't think he was disputing the definition. He was disputing my analysis that this was a valid example of the fallacy.
Maybe I have the wrong fallacy, or I'm just really stretching on this one.
This was my line of thinking:
- premise = there are no valid reasons to dislike X
- conclusion = people who dislike X don't have any valid reasons
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that assumes the conclusion within the premise. If OP was not being genuine, then the faulty conclusion would be "there are no good reasons to dislike GrapheneOS, therefore why do people dislike GrapheneOS?"
It's very close to begging the question, though. It really depends on OP's actual intent, which is hard to determine through text. But it does seem like it could have a, "Those of you who still hate GrapheneOS, why are you wrong?" tone to it.
Edit: Reading through OP's comments, they do sound genuine to me, I'm mostly just explaining why someone might mistake the post for begging the question.
Angela Collier actually goes a little more in depth in that video on why MOND is unlikely, even though she does admit it hasn't been fully ruled out. I didn't get the impression physicists don't talk about it because it causes debates, which she claimed seems to happen more often on the internet. I got the impression that most physicists just think it is unlikely to go anywhere, so they just aren't as interested in it.