U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-04-2017, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,204,468 times
Reputation: 24606

Advertisements

So a hyper intelligent narcissist sociopath hated the folks he thought were liberals. That just fits the profile. Crazy is as crazy does.

 
Old 07-04-2017, 09:47 AM
 
77,778 posts, read 33,173,406 times
Reputation: 15539
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
And you cannot answer the obvious because it spoils your claim. Your point is false and baseless, as you know you would not accuse someone quoting Duke of what you accuse the OP of.
I did. You CAN NOT use someone like Duke, Manson, Kaczynski, etc to try and make a point about some other group of people.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
Old 07-04-2017, 09:58 AM
 
4,851 posts, read 1,627,784 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I did. You CAN NOT use someone like Duke, Manson, Kaczynski, etc to try and make a point about some other group of people.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Dont change horses midstream. This line of debate was about you claiming that the OP is trying to link liberals with a mentally unstable person becuase they used negative quotes from that person.

And what I understand is that you fear answering a simple question I have asked concerning whether you would make the very exact claim regarding a white supremacist saying negative things about black people. So dont get uppity over what I understand until you find the courage to answer a simple question that perfectly proves my point on your silly claim. This isnt about whether an evil or unstable persons views have validity, but whether quoting them attempts to equate the group with the accuser, as you claim.
 
Old 07-04-2017, 10:16 AM
 
77,778 posts, read 33,173,406 times
Reputation: 15539
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
Dont change horses midstream. This line of debate was about you claiming that the OP is trying to link liberals with a mentally unstable person becuase they used negative quotes from that person.
I NEVER mentioned liberals. My position was a plain simple one. You can not use someone like this to make a bigger point about others. Period

Quote:
And what I understand is that you fear answering a simple question I have asked concerning whether you would make the very exact claim regarding a white supremacist saying negative things about black people. So dont get uppity over what I understand until you find the courage to answer a simple question that perfectly proves my point on your silly claim. This isnt about whether an evil or unstable persons views have validity, but whether quoting them attempts to equate the group with the accuser, as you claim.
I answered it. Plainly.and clearly.
 
Old 07-04-2017, 10:19 AM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,851 posts, read 10,516,207 times
Reputation: 9508
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I did. You CAN NOT use someone like Duke, Manson, Kaczynski, etc to try and make a point about some other group of people.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
And that is where the disagreement lies. In my opinion, either the given argument/statement is sound or it is not, regardless of its author.

Your argument seems to be that the exact same same words making the exact same point are either true or false, plausible or implausible, based on the identity of their author.

It is your right to believe as you wish, but in my opinion that seems a profoundly illogical stance. Perhaps you should insist on reading only words of which you are unaware of the author, because with your your way of looking at it, this would be the only way of forming an unbiased opinion on the message the words convey.
 
Old 07-04-2017, 10:21 AM
 
77,778 posts, read 33,173,406 times
Reputation: 15539
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
And that is where the disagreement lies. In my opinion, either the given argument/statement is sound or it is not, regardless of its author.

Your argument seems to be that the exact same same words making the exact same point are either true or false, plausible or implausible, based on the identity of their author.

It is your right to believe as you wish, but in my opinion that seems a profoundly illogical stance. Perhaps you should insist on reading only words which you are unaware of the author, because with your your way of looking at it, this would be the only way of forming an unbiased opinion on the message the words convey.
There is NO way you can use the words of someone like this to make a point about others and very RARELY do attempts to demonize large groups over something like this make sense no matter the author.
 
Old 07-04-2017, 11:02 AM
 
4,851 posts, read 1,627,784 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I NEVER mentioned liberals. My position was a plain simple one. You can not use someone like this to make a bigger point about others. Period



I answered it. Plainly.and clearly.

*sigh*

Post 48, you attempt to make the case that the OP deliberately quoted a mentally ill person to link the liberals ( the subject of the TK quote) to the disturbed TK somehow.
 
Old 07-04-2017, 11:19 AM
 
77,778 posts, read 33,173,406 times
Reputation: 15539
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
*sigh*

Post 48, you attempt to make the case that the OP deliberately quoted a mentally ill person to link the liberals ( the subject of the TK quote) to the disturbed TK somehow.
I made the point that the OP Tried to erroneously demonize a large group of people.

I did NOT care who they were demonizing. I've used this same argument in many instances.

Another example of people trying to demonize another large group of people over the words of one.

Really Shaun King?!?!?
 
Old 07-04-2017, 11:28 AM
 
77,778 posts, read 33,173,406 times
Reputation: 15539
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
You tried to make the point the OP deliberately selected a mentally disturbed source to demonize liberals by somehow linking the source of the criticism with the recepients of the criticism, without thinking through the illogic of this line of thought.
Nothing more I can say. It's a point I've made many times and directed towards many.

The biases are yours.
 
Old 07-04-2017, 11:31 AM
 
3,862 posts, read 1,501,003 times
Reputation: 7217
I won't live long enough to read the entire thread, but it seems that most folks are attacking TK but not what he said. Classic ad hominem response.

So if the initial quote was attributed to Hoot the Poodle, what would your response be?

Hoot the person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top