That’s a really confusing response. Rudimentary understandings of political messaging have nothing to do with logical fallacies or biases.

Let’s first get this out of the way: I don’t think I’ve heard any credible doctors say that Pelosi is showing signs of concerning cognitive decline. Highly respected and trusted doctors have said that and more about Trump, on the other hand.

In no way are any of my statements intended to support Trump. I’ll take Pelosi’s insider-trading any day over Trump’s attempts to incite a civil war for personal gain.

Getting back to the argument at hand, let’s break things down into less loaded terms:

A is a trusted and respected source of information whose opinion must be taken into account. A says that B and C are problematic and should be replaced.

Factoring in what A has said, B and C have both been similarly weighed down by A’s analysis and both should be equally considered for replacement.

Now, let’s consider other factors. After careful observation, you’ve noticed that B has crapped itself and is on fire. C, on the other hand, appears to be fine.

When considering which to replace between B and C, the obvious answer is B and B absolutely should be thrown out and used as an example to avoid anything like B ever happening again. After this careful consideration, then you can factor in A’s opinion on C and decide if A’s opinion is concerning enough to follow.

What you’ve suggested though is that because B is covered in shit and on fire, that A’s opinion of B must be taken seriously and any opinions of A’s about C carry less weight. You’re letting B’s shit-n-fire status influence A’s validity.

You can’t do that, though. Well, you can, but your arguments won’t be taken seriously and any influence you hoped to have in swaying people’s opinions will actually serve counter to your intents.

So, while I don’t agree with @givesomefucks@lemmy.world’s “no u” sort of statement and worry about it eroding very serious concerns people should have about Trump, I have to say that you’re not helping. Your conclusion is correct: Trump is a shit-covered flaming sack of senility. But your argument of “A’s equal opinions of B and C can be disregarded for C because B is bad” provides ammo to those would claim, “don’t listen to @MudMan@fedia.io, they use illogical and bad-faith arguments.”

So, if doctors who are medically motivated, not politically, are saying that they’re concerned about Trump and Pelosi, then you have to treat these concerns the same.

You can either

• redirect focus from the doctors to actual political messaging
• accept the opinions of doctors and then move on to political messaging
• dismiss the opinions of the doctors, which will weaken your argument, and then move on to political messaging

By trying to have your cake and eat it too, you’re revealing your unreliability and biases. Not only that, but your willingness to accept arguments against Trump and then disregard the same arguments against Pelosi, I believe you’re falling into the trappings of confirmation bias. If you want to disprove those arguments against Pelosi by showing that no credible news source has been approached by doctors who have argued anything about her except to disprove the edited “drunk Pelosi” video, then that’s a great way to accept medical opinions and bolster arguments about political messaging.

But by saying “it’s your prerogative to extend that [medical opinion] to Pelosi or not, which I don’t particularly care about” on the foundation of a “rudimentary understanding of how political messaging works,” you are using your logic to shit the sheets while we’re all in bed together.

Clean up your arguments before you cause more damage.