The “both sides” argument isn’t asinine because it equates the two major players, its asinine because it accepts their premise that they’re the only ones that matter.
It could, but the former is predicated on accepting the latter as fact. Argue about the former all you like, you’re basically already arguing that your opinion doesn’t matter because you only get two options anyways.
Can’t it be asinine for both reasons?
It could, but the former is predicated on accepting the latter as fact. Argue about the former all you like, you’re basically already arguing that your opinion doesn’t matter because you only get two options anyways.