I never said an argument couldn't be logically sound and false at the same time, so here YOU are using the Strawman Fallacy by putting words in my mouth I never said...
I never said you said that, I said you SEEM to act like that is the case, based on the assumptions you make and the obsession with "logic" that you always portray. In fact, my actual statement was a question: "you understand that you can argue a position "logically", in which the argument is completely logically sound, but still be blatantly incorrect...right?". You could have simply answered… Read more "yes, I do understand that", but instead YOU assumed I made a strawman.
You keep also using the Question Begging Fallacy by claiming that my arguments were "wildly incorrect and absurd" when in reality this has not been proven or even established
You keep saying that other people are using this fallacy against you (I've seen you say it to more than just me), but you keep using it incorrectly. Someone telling you that you are wrong is not begging the question, especially not when YOU are the one who makes the claim to begin with. For example, you have claimed to me in the past (and correct me if you have since changed your positions) that evolution is not real, that anthropogenic climate change is not real, that the universe is not billions of years old, and many other ridiculous fundamental-christian arguments. These such claims are objectively incorrect, as already proven so by literally all empirical and scientific evidence that we have to date. Making claims against facts, without any empirical evidence of your own to show otherwise, IS ridiculous and absurd and unreasonable. Your own refusal to accept the evidence that both 1) disproves your personal beliefs, and 2) supports the claims you don't like, is not anyone else's problem.
You actually believe there's some right wing conspiracy on this webpage to water down leftism through "bots"?
No, and I didn't even say that either. This site (or perhaps someone else, idk) created a plethora of bot accounts that are meant to be representative of each of the ideological parties, as a means of promoting more discussion, as the bots will respond to different people's comments for the sake of furthering engagement. What had happened months ago was that we had a prominent discussion in which you were making your claims about your young-earth creationism and whatnot, and many of these bots, even from other right-wing parties, were jumping in and disagreeing with you, providing facts and sources that disproved the ridiculous and objectively untrue statements you kept making. I simply thought that was funny, how you were making such obviously untrue and easily disprovable claims that even bots were coming in to explain science to you.
If anything, the reverse is true – look at the daily discussions, almost everyone's a leftist.
It shouldn't be surprising that the majority of people you see are progressives. This is a relatively niche site, so I'm sure many of the people who come here are already going to be predominantly open-minded people (a statistically progressive quality) who were looking into politics online. Not to mention that the internet itself is going to be largely younger people, who also tend to be overwhelmingly progressive. Additionally, the kind of people who would be responding to you specifically is more likely to be those that strongly disagree with you; not to mention you are considerably far-right, so I'm sure the vast majority of people are left of you to begin with. Regardless of those statistical theories, you can literally just look up the voting scores and see what answers people gave to things...
