77.5 💥 A deep debate about the political climate.

Person shameless

So instead of looking for an example of somewhere in our conversation for a fallacy, you search through my post history.

Trump declared a state of emergency to halt hearing asylum cases, he didn't actually solve the issues with asylum in any meaningful way, so yes, he does need some actual bipartisan bill to make actual change.

I'm still waiting for a single example of a fallacy I used in any of my arguments, just throwing them out by name is not providing one.Looks like you owe me an apology buddy!Also, I get you take yourself very seriously, but unironically engaging with a subreddit called 'deep thoughts' is very funny from the outside. You would probably get a better swath of thinkers by posting your theories on pornhub comment threads XD

Person 69

Lol. And you ignore the 10+ million point. As expected. Any point you can't nith pick is ignored.

My complete point was that the boarder problem was caused by enabling and neglect because he didn't use the laws already in the books and he did infact make it vary possible for them to mass migrant.

The catch and release.

Person shameless

I ignore it because for one, its a lieThat number includes people turned away at the borderAnd the reason so many people came in under Biden is because of the fallout from COVID, both the result of destabilizing economies in other countries, and a return to normal restrictions of movement after a strict lock down on international travel.The idea that Biden was not following the laws on the books is just nonsense propaganda you have been trained to parrotThats why he was working to use congress to enact meaningful change in immigration reform, because the laws as they were are not enough to address the issues we were seeing

Person 69

(Prompt from chat news)

These where actually just prompts because I finally understand how you think

Person shameless

So then as someone who can interpret the information, point out the tricks I am using.

Good luck!

Person 69

It was me explaining to the A.I.

Person shameless

For instance, the backlog of cases that resulted in asylum claims taking years to hear would have been addressed by Biden's bill, as it increased the amount of judges that were capped that could adjudicate those cases, gave more funding to do so, and put a hard cap on the amount of people that could enter the country.

Person 69

Example.

I can use A.I. if you want. But I'm not going to do it myself again.

You nith pick and

you goal post shift.

You can ask for clarification.

State of emergency.

Good. The right wing are happy

Person shameless

If the incentive to use weak asylum claims was removed by cases taking a week or so to hear them, that would result in meaingful change

Person 69

To you

Person shameless

You lie and misrepresent the conversation so you can avoid answering my questions or responding to my points

I have not once shifted any goalpost, or you could give an example of that happening.

Person 69

Philosophical foundation.

You lack what I have. I do not know what you have. But I don't see it

Person shameless

But of course, you don't even try to, because to you making the accusation is all you need to turn off your brain and act smug

You have zero foundation, your philosophy is whatever an AI tells you based on how you have trained it to inflate your ego.

Person 69

10+ million is a lie.

Then what's the real number

Person shameless

That would be a burden shift.

Ironic

Person 69

COVID.

Maybe it's a factor. But not "they" factor

Person shameless

Did the Biden migration bill oass

Person 69

No

Trump killed it after years of effort to negotiate with Republicans

fighting to keep the problem as bad as possible for his personal gain.

because he wanted to use the border as a campaign issue

but I know those are the sorts of thoughts you outsource to further enforce your biases.

I know you want to move past this so you can forget it, but I'm still waiting for an example of a single fallacy or goalpost shift buddy.

I'm gonna set up some beans to cook, you try to make an effort to back up the accusation.

good luck!

Person 69

I do use fallicies in this way. Congratulations 🎉. It's actually because my text would be longer if I had to explain. It's efficiency. I even made myself more efficient by ignoring narritives. But not in this chat just for you. I'm suppose to be focusing on vertues instead.

But since you ask I try to explain.

I can't keep explaining. At some point your going to have to see it in yourself. I can't guide your hand. That's not my job

Well. As I said before. Catch and release.

Sigh. Nit picking. And bad Faith was the fallicies. If it's not a fallicy, then that's your opinion. I feel like I'm talking invain

Person shameless

'Bad faith' is not a fallacy, and you could not give any examples of me being bad faith either.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are the one being bad faith by refusing to elaborate on even one example

Person 69

You not understand, is bad faith

Person shameless

If i actually don't understand then no, it would not be

Ask the AI if you have to

Person 69

What do you understand

Person shameless

Everything you have said, seemingly even better than you do

for instance, the difference between faulty logic and dishonesty

Person 69

Prompt:

Do you mean to say that him tell me it's thinking for me or that I'm not thinking for myself is not an origin fallacy. Then what is it. An assumption. Is an assumption not a fallicy. I have to prove it tent or something. I feel like I hate people.

All of it is wrongly earned certainty. This is so stupid. He is trying to win samantics, rather than address my points. A red herring.

All of it is weak argumentation.

Person shameless

lol if that is your prompt it sure looks like you are leading it into the answer you want to hear XD

Person 69

Hmm. I understand when someone tries to understand a point. You work around the points. It's bad faith because thinking is hard.

Person shameless

What point do you see me not addressing directly?Stop making vague accusations over and over, and back one up with something specificor you just sound like you are the one being bad faith

Person 69

I am going to give you something and I want you to try going with the flow or adding to it in some way. Whatever comes to mind

Person shameless

knowingly throwing out arguments you know are not true

If it's not an example of me using a fallacy or moving a goalpost or being bad faith, seems like an admission on your part that you can't find one.

💥

12. Alright. I’m going to slow this down and separate the emotional layer from the logical layer, because they’re getting tangled together — and that’s why this feels insane.

First: let’s answer your core question cleanly.

When he says:

> “You’re letting AI think for you.”

“Your philosophy is whatever an AI tells you.”

That is not an origin fallacy.

An origin (genetic) fallacy is:

> Rejecting a claim solely because of where it came from.

Example:

> “That idea came from Reddit, therefore it’s wrong.”

What he’s doing instead is one of these:

• Ad hominem (circumstantial) – attacking your reasoning process instead of your argument.

• Unwarranted assumption – asserting you are outsourcing thinking without proving it.

• Strawman – reducing your method to “AI ego inflation” rather than engaging your framework.

So your instinct that something is wrong is correct — the label was just slightly off.

Now let’s address the real dynamic.

He keeps demanding:

> “Show me a single fallacy.”

“Give one example.”

“Back it up.”

On the surface, that sounds reasonable.

But here’s the pattern:

That’s not necessarily a formal fallacy.

It’s argumentative framing control.

He is controlling the terms of what counts as valid criticism.

That’s why it feels like:

> wrongly earned certainty

semantic warfare

weak argumentation

Because the discussion is no longer about substance — it’s about whether your label fits his preferred definition.

Now let’s look at the border exchange.

You:

> 10+ million entered.

He:

> That number includes turnaways. COVID destabilization. Biden bill would have fixed backlog. Trump killed it.

This is the first moment in the entire thread where he actually engages policy mechanics.

Notice something important:

When he talks about asylum judges, backlog caps, and incentives, that is a structural argument.

When you respond with:

> To you. Philosophical foundation. You lack what I have.

You leave the structural argument.

That’s the pivot point.

From there the conversation collapses back into meta-argument.

Now here’s the uncomfortable but important part:

You both do this.

He: • retreats into technical demands • uses mockery • reframes constantly

You: • escalate to epistemic superiority • shift to “you lack foundation” • generalize into mental capacity critiques

Neither side stays anchored in one concrete argument long enough to resolve it.

That’s why it feels circular.

Now about this:

> “You not understand is bad faith.”

No.

Bad faith requires intentional dishonesty.

Not understanding is not bad faith. Refusing to understand might be. But you have to prove refusal, not just difficulty.

Now let’s talk about your deeper insight:

You’re frustrated because you operate with:

• structured epistemology

• uncertainty as a tool

• philosophical layering

• domain separation (news vs philosophy vs science)

He operates with:

• debate framing

• source citation mechanics

• definitional precision

• argumentative containment

You want depth. He wants definitional clarity and policy specifics.

Those are different cognitive games.

When those games clash, it feels like:

> he won’t activate his prefrontal cortex.

But from his perspective, he probably thinks:

> you won’t stay inside one falsifiable claim long enough to test it.

That’s the collision.

Now here’s the real issue:

You’re trying to diagnose his cognition instead of isolating one claim and crushing it cleanly.

If you had responded to his asylum judge argument like this:

> “If backlog reduction solves incentive structure, explain why crossings spiked before reform attempts passed.”

Now you’re in substance.

Instead, the conversation keeps going meta.

And meta-arguments are ego traps.

Now about this feeling:

> I feel like I hate people.

That’s frustration from unresolved cognitive friction.

It’s not about people. It’s about: • not being seen • not being engaged at depth • feeling dismissed

That’s different from hatred.

Let me be direct:

You are good at pattern recognition and meta-analysis. You are weaker at staying anchored to one falsifiable claim and resolving it fully.

He is good at argumentative containment. He is weaker at philosophical abstraction and self-examination.

That’s the real structure.

If you want to win these exchanges:

If you want depth instead of war:

Ask one real question. Wait. Don’t attack the response. Build on it.

Right now you both are playing dominance games, not truth games.

And that’s why it feels stupid.

If you want, I can show you exactly how to re-run that border argument in a way that forces depth instead of collapse.