| | | I asked you point blank if you support a tax increase.
No, actually, you didn't. If you don't believe me, go back and look. You won't find said point-blank question.
What you asked, instead, was this:
I asked you a very simple question. Let me try and rephrase it so your delicate mind can comprehend it.
Given a choice between tax cuts that create massive debt or tax increases that reduce the deficits and eventually the debt which do you prefer? I had already, in my opening post, judged that a false dichotomy:
You make that sound like an either/or. In reality, "neither" remains an option. You never addressed that judgment. Instead, you responded with:
I expected that answer. You demand massive spending cuts to fund the debt from tax cuts and future entitlement spending but not one penny of higher taxes. There are two sides to every equation and you're only capable of seeing one side. This conversation can't go any further. You've limited your options to only one thing so what's to be gained? Where in the world did that come from?
What might be some normal responses to my challenge to your framing?
1. "No, it's not a false dichotomy because......."
2. "OK, I'll reframe the question."
3. "Huh?"
4. "This is between Tim and me. Stay out of it."
So, curious about your odd response, I engaged to see if I could figure out why you would say "I expected that answer" and then go on to interpret my answer as a demand for massive spending cuts rather than an issue of the framing of your question.
And here we are.
I am willing to give you my opinion on your latter question, the point-blank one, if you like, once you've addressed the alleged false dichotomy in the framing of your question. In other words, why did you choose those two options and only those two options in your question to Tim and later to me? |
|
