but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument
If this were a debate he’s making an argument that he’s denied the underlying principle of: eg arguing the “sky is blue” after saying “blue doesn’t exist”. I’m pointing out that this is a nonsensical statement in the context it was given.
but it functions as a whataboutism. it doesn’t address the original concerns of the statement. instead it uses an ad hominem attach to discredit the argument
If this were a debate he’s making an argument that he’s denied the underlying principle of: eg arguing the “sky is blue” after saying “blue doesn’t exist”. I’m pointing out that this is a nonsensical statement in the context it was given.
how is a concern about upending precedent a nonsensical statement? the source of an argument does not impact its validity as a point
The context makes the statement ironic and unserious.