I think it's worth considering whether there are numerous levels to this phenomenon, and that you yourself are on one of those levels (as we all are)...and perhaps not the highest one (of which there may be no such thing, in fact).
A motivation would be to increase the likelihood of one's perceptions of what's going on aligning with what is actually going on (which is what Trump supporters are often criticized for).
Whether this qualifies for being worth it is largely (but not necessarily entirely) a subjective matter.
Begging the question: Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Arguments that beg the question work to obscure the actual points in controversy and can be looked at as a form of circular reasoning.
This is false, because I have not actually done any such thing (it is not contained in my text, or the ideas behind my text). In fact, what physically/objectively occurred is that I explicitly did the opposite: "I think it's worth considering whether...").
I might respond by saying that you are engaging in rhetoric:
Rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
...but then, this would be to assume conscious (and perhaps nefarious) intent.
Rather, I suspect most likely what is happening is that you are (or, something is) engaging in perception.
Perception: a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.
"A motivation would be to increase the likelihood of one's perceptions of what's going on aligning with what is actually going on" -- this only works if you assume that my perception is not already aligned with what is actually going on.
Your conclusion is that I should consider whether I am being childish in claiming that it is childish for someone to support Trump. When I asked you why you would think this you said that it is because it would increase the likelihood of my perception being aligned with reality. So you are starting with the assumption that my perception is not aligned with reality and then concluding that I should reconsider it. So your premise is that I am wrong and therefore you conclude that I should reconsider. That is what it means to beg the question.
> "A motivation would be to increase the likelihood of one's perceptions of what's going on aligning with what is actually going on" -- this only works if you assume that my perception is not already aligned with what is actually going on.
Well, unless you have a direct connection of some sort with God / The Oracle / The Universe, I suspect that you are in the same boat as the rest of us: an instance of consciousness that runs on the brain, whose access to "reality" is via your senses, and subject to some substantial subset of the various imperfections that science/psychology have documented over the years.
> Your conclusion is that I should consider whether I am being childish in claiming that it is childish for someone to support Trump.
More precisely, I said: "I think it's worth considering...."
> When I asked you why you would think this you said that it is because it would increase the likelihood of my perception being aligned with reality.
More precisely, I said: "A motivation would be to increase the likelihood....".
I also noted: "which is what Trump supporters are often criticized for", because of the potentially delicious irony (in that you were criticizing the cognitive capabilities of Trump supporters, yet when someone dares to challenge you, you deny any flaw, confidently, and respond with objectively inaccurate counter-accusations).
I also noted: "Whether this qualifies for being worth it is largely (but not necessarily entirely) a subjective matter."
From my perspective, you are describing what has happened as if I am making confident statements of fact, whereas the actual text I have written (shared/documented reality) demonstrates otherwise....which I think lends credence to the possibility that your take on reality is not actually perfect.
> So you are starting with the assumption that my perception is not aligned with reality and then concluding that I should reconsider it. So your premise is that I am wrong and therefore you conclude that I should reconsider. That is what it means to beg the question.
But only if one's premises are correct! (Yours are not.)
Further, marvel at how many unforced (I speculate) errors you've made - for extra effect: consider what percentage of the things you've said contain error.
I think it is interesting how dynamic people's interest is in a topic, and how this interest level can be deliberately altered by their counterpart in a conversation by speaking in very specific forms.
I also believe this phenomenon is relevant to the broader discussions in this thread.
