• prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Just gonna chime in late to say that I don’t think it’s circular. They did not define a “realistic candidate” as necessarily someone without a contrary view, just that it is a trait shared by all “realistic candidates” that are currently running. At no point did they say it was a necessary trait of all “realistic candidates.”

    It’s kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not vice versa. Just because all of the current “realistic candidates” share that one opinion, it does not logically follow that they need to share the opinion in order to be a “realistic candidate.”

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Except pugjesus did describe ‘realistic candidate’ as one with no contrary views:

      No realistic candidate has contrary views.

      Therefore

      There are no realistic candidates with contrary views.

      Regardless, begging the question doesn’t necessarily need to be circular, just that the speaker assumes some premise that hasn’t been proven to be true. Namely that candidates with a different view on Israel are not “realistic”, either because of that view or because they are not the ‘presumptive’ nominee (and are therefore not realistic). In either case, the framing of the question was completely disingenuous.