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.
When you compare anything/anyone to Hitler or Nazi Germany who isn't actually leading up boxcars , you lose the argument. ....
Reading comprehension! I already said I was Godwinning the argument in the quoted post. I notice you chose to fixate on that example instead of the gun rights example further down. Why is that?
You said that laws should be hard and fast rules, full stop. I gave an example where that is a bad idea, thus disproving your statement through the formal logic:
Statement (A) All laws must/should be followed/enforced
Counterexample (B) Points out a single law that would be immoral/problematic to follow.
Thus (A) cannot be true because there is at least one example where it is not true.
The example was not to compare Hitler to this specific issue, it was to provide an example where it would be immoral to follow the letter of the law. There is a reason we now regard Germans who bravely disobeyed the laws in that period to help save people as heroes, and the "just following orders" rank and file Nazis as villains. Perhaps these distinctions are just very hard to grasp for extreme authoritarian black and white mindsets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatBob96
I lean Libertarian myself on a lot of issues......but not on immigration.
And I wasn't stupid enough to vote for Gary Johnson.
I think you mean ethical enough, instead you voted for your "team" because you wanted to "win".
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 07-05-2017 at 12:59 PM..
Short memory. You forget about the 350+ bills Harry Reid had sitting on his desk that he would never introduce for a vote.
You mean like John Boehner and Paul Ryan did in the House? That thing that actually has a name -- The Hastert Rule?
At least Reid never blocked anything that would have passed on a bipartisan vote. There were dozens of bills that didn't get a vote in the House bc of the Hastert Rule.
Last edited by EddieB.Good; 07-05-2017 at 03:10 PM..
Complete hypocrisy. How much help or support did the repubs give to Dems when they tried to pass legislation to make minor changes to background checks for guns, after the slaughter of those precious kids in a Connecticut elementary school?
Reading comprehension! I already said I was Godwinning the argument in the quoted post. I notice you chose to fixate on that example instead of the gun rights example further down. Why is that?
You said that laws should be hard and fast rules, full stop. I gave an example where that is a bad idea, thus disproving your statement through the formal logic:
Statement (A) All laws must/should be followed/enforced
Counterexample (B) Points out a single law that would be immoral/problematic to follow.
Thus (A) cannot be true because there is at least one example where it is not true.
The example was not to compare Hitler to this specific issue, it was to provide an example where it would be immoral to follow the letter of the law. There is a reason we now regard Germans who bravely disobeyed the laws in that period to help save people as heroes, and the "just following orders" rank and file Nazis as villains. Perhaps these distinctions are just very hard to grasp for extreme authoritarian black and white mindsets?
I think you mean ethical enough, instead you voted for your "team" because you wanted to "win".
The point here is you can't just ignore laws because you don't like them.
And having to use such an extreme example as Nazi Germany means you really don't have an argument. ..
It's a false equivalency.....and using such a tactic, you could justify ignoring just about any law that you disagree with.
Lol. It's always about the Dems being obstructionist or doing the right thing.
Eight long years of Republicans obstructing and not doing the right thing at all. They could not have cared less about the 'right thing.'
Reap what you sow.
If they had been able to obstruct ACA we wouldn't be in this HC mess. There is a big difference between obstructing horrible law making, and obstructing just to obstruct because you're angry and upset your queen wasn't crowned.
The people are waking up to the party before country DNC, and Pravda MSM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510
The smoke and mirrors show continues. I'll bet they challenge flag-burning next.
The house of cards is imploding. People are sick of hearing about Russia and after almost a year with zero evidence. The way these Obama holdovers are leaking there would have been tons of proof by now if there was any. There isn't.
It's a win win situation for any Republican. If any Democrat votes no, then it can be used in the future against them. If they vote yes, then those Democrats will have problems with their fellow Democrats.
How exactly would this law have prevented this situation?
Also, some of y'all would make great politicians with all the empty rhetoric.
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.
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.
