Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Hillary Clinton’s Vaunted GOTV Operation May Have Turned Out Trump Voters"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Desperate to hold onto some moral high-ground when struggling to find purchase, I see. Well, let's see what you follow up wi-
    Not desperate at all. Just telling it like it is.


    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Really? Really? That's what you chose as a response? An ad hominem fallacy? Your argument was nothing but equating your opponent's views with that of pedophiles to try and demonstrate some sense of moral superiority? Why not just go full argumentum ad Hitlerum and claim its what the Nazis would want as well? Double down on the fallacies and go for broke.

    Maybe you'll actually read my previous post in its entirety before responding here, which means you'll see where you fell flat pretty swiftly - unless you don't believe that the actions of pedophiles violate the rights of another being, in which case I could understand your confusion, and you have my apologies for not clarifying.

    Just in case I'll tell you that most of us tend to see rape and molestation as violations of another's rights, which would make it an example of not "just being left alone". That would make it like the example of murder provided in my previous post, which was contrasted against crimes committed where no individual's rights are violated. Murder is an example of an action that does violate the rights of someone else, while drug use and consensual sex (which is different from non-consensual sex, including with a minor) were provided as examples of ones that don't violate the rights of another.

    I would have assumed someone educated about morality - or the law, which was dismissed in favor of the former - would have understood that distinction, but you know what they say about making assumptions. I'll try to avoid as much in the future to reduce the chance of another misinterpretation.


    Like I said...
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      Not desperate at all. Just telling it like it is.








      Like I said...
      I applaud you. Backing down in the face of a superior argument is a sign of maturity.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        I applaud you. Backing down in the face of a superior argument is a sign of maturity.
        As usual, you either missed the point or are trying to change to subject.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          As usual, you either missed the point or are trying to change to subject.
          No, I was applauding your maturity in recognizing that you had no real ground to stand on with your response and thus were backing out of a weak position instead of continuing on to try and prove that... uh, molesting children is like using drugs?

          Sorry. Your claim about morality and pedophilia didn't really translate when discussing how both sides of the political divide favor an interventionist government that does anything but "just leave me alone".

          But again, that's part of why I was applauding you. Understanding one has little ground to stand on with such a claim and backing down, rather than respond directly to a counter-argument one cannot defeat, is a laudable action.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            No, I was applauding your maturity in recognizing that you had no real ground to stand on with your response and thus were backing out of a weak position instead of continuing on to try and prove that... uh, molesting children is like using drugs?

            Sorry. Your claim about morality and pedophilia didn't really translate when discussing how both sides of the political divide favor an interventionist government that does anything but "just leave me alone".

            But again, that's part of why I was applauding you. Understanding one has little ground to stand on with such a claim and backing down, rather than respond directly to a counter-argument one cannot defeat, is a laudable action.
            I stated a fact, and you immediately began trying to use word count to cope with failure. You have been amusing, but you haven't changed a thing.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              I stated a fact, and you immediately began trying to use word count to cope with failure. You have been amusing, but you haven't changed a thing.
              What fact? You stated that you knew more about morality than I did, then went on to say that pedophiles use the same argument I had, which was (among other things) that rape and consensual sex were altogether different concepts in terms of "being left alone".

              So I'm sorry again: I assumed your unwillingness to provide anything to back up your claims, or even point out exactly how your supposed points worked, was the sign of a mature adult recognizing their argument's limitations and bowing out when unable to support their, um, "fact". Another false assumption on my part that I must apologize for.

              Maybe you would do better to prove you have stated a "fact" if you actually supported your argument well? Use some quotations, perhaps? Provide a coherent response to say why X is Y and not Z? I understand if you don't want to, though - like I said, I thought that the outward feebleness of the "that's what pedophiles say" argument was self-evident, hence my assumption of bowing out.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                What fact? You stated that you knew more about morality than I did, then went on to say that pedophiles use the same argument I had, which was (among other things) that rape and consensual sex were altogether different concepts in terms of "being left alone".

                So I'm sorry again: I assumed your unwillingness to provide anything to back up your claims, or even point out exactly how your supposed points worked, was the sign of a mature adult recognizing their argument's limitations and bowing out when unable to support their, um, "fact". Another false assumption on my part that I must apologize for.

                Maybe you would do better to prove you have stated a "fact" if you actually supported your argument well? Use some quotations, perhaps? Provide a coherent response to say why X is Y and not Z? I understand if you don't want to, though - like I said, I thought that the outward feebleness of the "that's what pedophiles say" argument was self-evident, hence my assumption of bowing out.
                I can't see how you could be confused.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  I can't see how you could be confused.
                  I'll be the first to admit I just lack the faculties to understand how pedophilia is a logical counter to a discussion on state authority and the differences between murder and consensual sex and how that relates to individual rights and your moral superiority.

                  You'll have to spell it out for me, like you would with a child. Just be sure to adequately back up your statements so we avoid something equally useless as "this is right because god said so" or something similar. Maybe aim for upper middle school level? Just connect the dots to complete your picture and that should do enough to clarify just what you were saying.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    That is why the Democrats have their own split coming. Clinton represented the moderate wing of the party: liberal, but still capable of being pro-business and playing well with Wall Street.

                    They lost this election. Now it is the more stringent elements, the explicitly anti-business, anti-Wall Street, distrustful of capitalism, anti-establishment elements that look likely to jump into the fray. Not as far as Bernie, but much more Bernie than Bill.
                    Not to say that because it happened in the UK it will happen in the US, but that has been the recent Labour Party experience. Tony Blair was able to move the party to a pro-Business, politically central position. After Blair it has taken two election defeats but the hold of the Blairites is broken. Labour has swung hard left under pressure from its own registered members and now has the attributes you describe above, to which I would add 'anti-military'.
                    Ne Obliviscaris, Sans Peur

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      I'd say she represented the Old School wing. That is the wing that could be bought and paid for by Big Business, Unions, and other groups with cash to squander.
                      While the Progressive Left is highly monolithic they don't buy into Old School Democrat politics of the establishment. That's why Sanders did so well with the college age demographic.

                      If the Democrats are going to be Socialist revolutionaries they'll lose. If they stick with Old School politics of the machine and graft, they'll lose. They need to figure out a strategy for the Electronics age and 21st Century.
                      The Republicans have the edge here. They represent the more Centrist and Right Wing. The Right wants to be left the Hell alone. The Centrists want limited government. That is doable on popular vote when the electorate gets pissed at those who want to impose too much government come along.
                      Hillary represented the worst of all those worlds. She was Old School machine politics, combined with Progressivism, and topped with a good helping of lying corruption.
                      If Clinton had been left in charge of border and immigration control she would made sure enough Dem voters were imported from the Third World to force the GOP to be the ones who had to radically change their stance. A Trump defeat and America would have been set for radical social change and Republicans would not have had the citizen numbers to stop it in any future election.
                      Ne Obliviscaris, Sans Peur

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X