Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
I have no interest in trapping myself in your usual sophistic dialogues.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Again...trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic: no.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself, either. I'm interested in what you're actually trying to say. what about this is "trapping yourself in leftist framing"? say what you actually mean.
In order to refute the slander you must explain how false political accusations work. This is not "trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic." It is the explication of how the framing and dialectic function.
Letting such false accusations stand is capitulation.
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
Rowling is a leftist
No... I'd say using libel laws is fighting fire with water.
Because they like to say 'you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences'? Now that is fighting fire with fire.
So when the choices are Take Action or Take it Like a Bitch,
which one are you espousing?
Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself, either. I'm interested in what you're actually trying to say. what about this is "trapping yourself in leftist framing"? say what you actually mean.
In order to refute the slander you must explain how false political accusations work. This is not "trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic." It is the explication of how the framing and dialectic function.
Letting such false accusations stand is capitulation.