@kyledcheney I wouldn't call that embarrassing reply "engagement": in the place of a defense of his original claim were insults. Moreover, confusing a judge's determination with conviction is not something a lawyer does in good faith. Bad faith "engagement" might be worse than no engagement.
@pstumler@FusionistBlog If pointing out that an argument is bad while not acknowledging that the conclusion is true is 'clownish,' then so is *not* acknowledging that an argument is bad while pointing out that the conclusion is true.
@cherylmcg53@Michael73612394@JDunlap1974 Presidents can't refuse a salary.
He's not the only president to donate his salary.
He did not donate 25 million.
To the OP: He didn't steal from his charities, but he did borrow from them.
@hippotuits@bronze_age_zee @benjean2 @RexChapman I spent ~ 5 minutes trying to understand the bizarre reply to this and I'm still lost. Apparently interpretering a verse as Jesus taught is "novel" and leads those who follow it into heresy and sin.
@GoblinCoin1@NickBevil666@GlomsCards@BrettFavre 1) there was no argument, just a claim.
2) yes, this would likely be a problematic response (note that informal fallacies are typically more complex than they first appear) if e.g. used to evade something worth considering, but all that's worth considering here is the hypocrisy.