Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I have decided to not allow myself to respond with personal attacks or personal insults to other forum members. When one lowers themselves to that level, it's an open admission that they cannot debate with fact and must resort to logical fallacy arguments.

In other words, when the response becomes a personal insult, you lose the debate at that very moment. If your Ideology cannot withstand factual debate, it's not worthy of the attempt.
Click to expand...
Well, huzzah and bra-frickety-vo!

I wasn't aware "Ideology" is being debated in this thread. No, little nuggets like "since when does disagreeing with election results constitute a crime" are what prick my ears. Again, do you think we're stupid?

Nice try on the fauxlier-than-thou quote above though.

ETA: Ninja'd by Aridas.
 
Last edited:
Someone who supports Trump feigning delicate sensibilities regarding offensive conduct is quite rich.
 
Aridas said:
Alright, then. How should one deal with it when someone asks a question like, "since when does disagreeing with election results constitute a crime?" when NO ONE even remotely claimed that "disagreeing with election results" was a crime in the first place and minimizing the events actually in question as simply "disagreeing with election results" is profoundly dishonest? Even moreso when those actions are being falsely equated with "every Democrat who ever lost an election." Either you think that we're stupid, you have chosen to be stupid, or you're trolling for whatever reason. There's no other real option.
Click to expand...

I'd love to discuss the Trump Georgia case in the appropriate thread.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'd love to discuss the Trump Georgia case in the appropriate thread.
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to look it up. I'm also not particularly interested in having BS spouted at me about how Trump wasn't doing what he really friggin' obviously was - the disagreeing isn't the issue in the Trump Georgia case, after all.
 
TragicMonkey said:
...You excuse politicians from following the rules you suggest are necessary for civilized discourse? Why?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

There is nothing civil about politics or politicians. This will likely be one of if not THE worst gutter level, name calling elections we're likely to see in the US.

On a positive note, and back to my previous post, there can always be civil discussion among members here. Though some would seem to have difficulties doing so at times. My statement to remain civil would include any politicians that may be members here.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Not at all.

There is nothing civil about politics or politicians. This will likely be one of if not THE worst gutter level, name calling elections we're likely to see in the US.

On a positive note, and back to my previous post, there can always be civil discussion among members here. Though some would seem to have difficulties doing so at times. My statement to remain civil would include any politicians that may be members here.
Click to expand...

But you said
When one lowers themselves to that level, it's an open admission that they cannot debate with fact and must resort to logical fallacy arguments.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that a politician who lowers himself to that level is openly admitting he cannot debate with fact and must resort to logical fallacy arguments?

And when you say:

In other words, when the response becomes a personal insult, you lose the debate at that very moment. If your Ideology cannot withstand factual debate, it's not worthy of the attempt.
Click to expand...

does that mean a politican whose responses are personal insults loses the debate, and it's a demonstration that his ideology cannot withstand factual debate, and is unworthy of the attempt?

I'm struggling to understand why you can accept behavior from leaders and potential leaders that you find unacceptable from strangers on the internet. In my own value system I expect more of leaders and those who wish to lead, not less.
 
TragicMonkey said:
But you said

Does that mean that a politician who lowers himself to that level is openly admitting he cannot debate with fact and must resort to logical fallacy arguments?

And when you say:



does that mean a politican whose responses are personal insults loses the debate, and it's a demonstration that his ideology cannot withstand factual debate, and is unworthy of the attemp?

I'm struggling to understand why you can accept behavior from leaders and potential leaders that you find unacceptable from strangers on the internet. In my own value system I expect more of leaders and those who wish to lead, not less.
Click to expand...

I see. You are equating forum rules and applying them to places other than the forum. I am not.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I have decided to not allow myself to respond with personal attacks or personal insults to other forum members. When one lowers themselves to that level, it's an open admission that they cannot debate with fact and must resort to logical fallacy arguments.

In other words, when the response becomes a personal insult, you lose the debate at that very moment. If your Ideology cannot withstand factual debate, it's not worthy of the attempt.
Click to expand...

johnny karate said:
You didn’t say anything about forum rules.
Click to expand...

That is correct. I said "to other forum members" as Hilited above. Where else will I address forum members?
 
Aridas said:
I'm too lazy to look it up. I'm also not particularly interested in having BS spouted at me about how Trump wasn't doing what he really friggin' obviously was - the disagreeing isn't the issue in the Trump Georgia case, after all.
Click to expand...
It's particularly egregious in the case of the events of Jan 6th. There are millions of eye witnesses who watched them unfold in real time. I'm one of them. Don't tell me I didn't see what I saw, and can watch again any time I like.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The fact that your post is seething is very telling. Billionaires play the long game and Trump plays Social Media, Hollywood and the Fake News like a fine violin.

He uses their ego against them and always to his benefit. If you don't know the average working man's opinion of Fake News and Hollywood by now, that's on you.
Click to expand...

I can see how you'd think that. His joke wasn't meant for you. Americans found it funny though.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I have decided to not allow myself to respond with personal attacks or personal insults to other forum members. When one lowers themselves to that level, it's an open admission that they cannot debate with fact and must resort to logical fallacy arguments.

In other words, when the response becomes a personal insult, you lose the debate at that very moment. If your Ideology cannot withstand factual debate, it's not worthy of the attempt.
Click to expand...

This would be more convincing if you didn't back a treasonous, rapist, Russian whore. There is no regaining to moral high ground left for you to claim.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom