Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by The Human Q-Tip, May 31, 2017.
Zero arguments above, thanks for this update
I'm not going to engage in some sort of debate where you try to give examples of white oppression or whatever. Or normalizing they alt right in some way. These are not normal people. If you can't see that, it's useless for me to try.
Jesus man, you were asked to support a claim you made.
Thats not an invitation to obfuscate the argument until its one you can win.
Either conxede the point or post evidence to support your statement.
Liberals are killing this country
Hillary is gross and a criminal
Obama wanted America to fail
The leftists play identity politics
Nazis..."well, there are two sides to the coin"
Yep.... pretty crazy isn't it?
VA gov McAuliffe just announced there were 3 fatalities today including 2 state police troopers in the helicopter crash.
The people protesting the Nazi groups are just as bad.
This post is full of lol, and I'm adement that you're absolutely for what's marching today.
Your logic is what applies to, say, the radicalization of Muslims, but vehemently gets disagreed with because America isn't why they get radicalized when they're citizens and have lived here for the last, nearly, 16 years.
Not fucking white people who get called on for being supremacists, nationalists, racists, and bigots.
You've changed the argument mid-debate.
Let's assume arguendo that nuclear war is a possibility. Would that be the fault of Donald Trump, as you suggest, or all of the administrations and Congresses prior to this point who failed to do anything about the possibility of a nuclear North Korea?
If you're worried for anyone, be worried for the South Koreans.
Says everyone who has a pet issue that doesn't want to argue the nuts and bolts. I've seen this same line repeated for things like Planned Parenthood funding, concealed carry laws, and a great host of other topics.
It's a very easy way to avoid actually arguing for specific policies in question. Just frame your entire, general stance as morally superior, and skip over the nitty-gritty cost-benefit analysis. It doesn't hold up the even the slightest scrutiny, but it rarely ever gets that far.
Just declare your position as a non-partisan moral one, and move on because, after all, anyone who disagrees and wants to actually talk about specific regulations is a partisan, immoral hack who just wants dirty water and filthy air.
Only responding to the last part, because you're talking about morality while talking about cost-benefit analysis.
You, uh, realize that short term business profits aren't equatable to killing off the earth, right? And the same people who say, "oh, global warming is a hoax" aren't looking to discuss anything you actually mentioned. We have a thread. Go find a productive discussion that hinges on anything more than rejecting the study, science, or methods used to get the data.
It's an indefensible stance, because at its core, even if someone was to vehemently disagree with it, it creates a whole new market for entrepreneurs and small business owners to flood.
We don't want Planned Parenthood because of biblical morality.
We don't want to curb healthcare companies because it curbs innovation.
We don't want global warming to be real because... it'll cut into business profits?
Doesn't add up, Rich.
Bound to be trouble when the alt-left showed up. That was the cue to shut everything down
What are you talking about.
He's taking an absolutist position that cutting into the EPA = wanting dirty water and you chime in with a whole post about global warming and people who think it's a hoax.
Just flying all over the place now.
Literally, the guy says Trump wants to kill the EPA and cutting EPA power/funding isn't a partisan issue (meaning it's a moral one, that's what people mean when they say that. It's not a political issue because it's a right/wrong moral one) because we all need clean water, and you stroll in talking about global warming and hoaxes.
I'm responding directly to you. You brought up policy, we have a thread, it doesn't get discussed. You brought up cost benefit analysis of changing regulations. You brought up morality as an arguement, while bringing up Planned Parenthood.
Defend your positions. I don't care what he said.
The overwhelming majority of climate change deniers, including the ones on this board, can't talk policy.
You need to care about what he said because my entire post was in direct response to his phrasing. Because everything you're saying now makes no sense in light of that.
All I know is that, if I went to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest and the people I was protesting with starting waving Nazi flags and chanting "blood and soil," I'd start to seriously consider what the fuck I was doing there.