If this was what you were presenting this as (a logical response to the argument above) then it shouldn't be another question. It should apply directly to this argument.

Your comment only applies to a negotiation between 2 parties and doesn't address the actual problem at hand whatsoever. So yeah, its not a logical response to the above argument at all.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It establishes the logical framework for the opposing case. Making the opposing case requires additional assumptions, such as, where your minimum requirements ought to be set, exactly how good/bad Biden is, etc. Those would be tangents that I don't really want to get sidetracked by, because my goal was just to establish the logical framework for the opposing case. My comment was long enough as it is, and I've frequently had comments that long been (rudely) dismissed as being too long. My purpose for that comment is not to persuade but to explain.

[–] null 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It certainly does not establish "the logical framework" for the opposing case. Again, as I explained, the framework deals with 2 parties negotiating, which is not applicable to the argument presented.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You haven't provided any reason why the situations aren't comparable. If you introduce more parties, it doesn't change the dynamics of the situation.

[–] null 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.

If you introduce more parties, it doesn’t change the dynamics of the situation.

Of course it does.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because the parties you established are the voter, and the party asking for votes. Those are not the parties presented in the original argument.

That's called an analogy.

Of course it does.

No it doesn't.

[–] null 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s called an analogy.

Not when it isn't analogous to the situation presented. Which yours is not.

No it doesn’t.

Prove it.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Prove it's not. You're the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous. I don't know why you think that would change it so it's impossible for me to address your reasons.

[–] null 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Prove it’s not. You’re the one claiming that the distinction makes it not analogous.

That's not at all how the burden of proof works.

I don’t know why you think that would change it so it’s impossible for me to address your reasons.

You're leaping to the assumption that the scenario you provided is even analogous to the one you replied to. It isn't. You need to start by proving that it is.