Reply With Quote
there's maybe a little bit of overlap, but suggesting any straight up equivalence b/w WC and National Socialism is grotesquely overblown.
and boorish. and probably objectively wrong.
Hes tying reproductive rights to government programs and targeting a particular subset. Giving alms is not analogous to tying off someones fallopian tubes. its not hard to figure out if you are not an idiot.
i think the better discussion is whether or not its fair to call him a Nazi now --and I mean quite literally-- given his support of Hitler in conjunction with this current gem.
there's maybe a little bit of overlap, but suggesting any straight up equivalence b/w WC and National Socialism is grotesquely overblown.
and boorish. and probably objectively wrong.
EUGENICS SUCKS!!!!
That's why ElNono is becoming more and more irritating to try to get my idea across to. At every attempt, he purposely twists the meaning of my words. I explain, and he continues on. When I generalize, and everyone knows their are exceptions to any generality, he takes it as meaning everyone.
There is always a way to twist someone out of context. ElNono has become a Master-Baiter in that regard.
ElNono...
You deserve to be ignored.
You don't have to discuss anything with me, and you have full control of the ignore function.
What you're missing, however, is that I'm actually one of the few posters that decided to engage you, and gave you the opportunity to debate your idea, as re ed I might think it is.
I'm far from the only poster that has disagreed with you in this thread (frankly, the next one that agrees with you will be the first). I'm also not the only one you've accused of 'twisting your words', even though I don't think one single poster asked you for clarification, seeing what you think, as absurd as it is, it's plain as day.
One has to wonder why you even started this thread, seeing you had no intentions of discussing this topic or dealing with criticism. I guess my early prognosis in this thread was spot on.
BTW, Whinehole was talking about equating you with a Nazi. I don't believe I ever made that claim.
Congratulations, you wasted my time. Now off.
Boorish? He compliments Hitler's leadership and advocates eugenics. moreso, he absolutely is a sycophant to his corporate overlords. He has repeatedly sympathized with their plights and struggles on a personal level. i am talking about the corporation he works for.
At what point can you start to define someone as a fascist? Do they have to wear swastikas and have Hitler mustaches?
I believe that he would be more than happy with a single party totalitarian state if it was his boys that were at the head. Hes a minion of others or strives to be that much is clear.
if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then its a ing duck. Regardless, an objective discussion of 'what is facism' or whether or not it is a fair description is infinitely more enlightening than the he vomits upon us.
a post like that is worthy of WC, tbh. both of you guys are so great at reading minds and I must say your reliance on cliche is striking.
quack quack
I used a cliche to describe the degree of comparison. The argument in no way depends on that. You even agree on the tenant of the argument admitting 'overlaps' but try to dismiss it as insignificant.
A guy supports Hitler's leadership, eugenics and has consistent demonstrated support for totalitarian politics but thats no grounds for questioning if they are a Nazi. I guess that leaves getting swastika tattoos on your forehead as the only grounds for that type of question.
The only cliches are the policies he has as you admit with his 'overlaps.' Its facist bull . Thats not cliche. Thats quite ing literal. When you look up the that they did. Thats what they did.
Now, he most certainly is trolling it up but it merits calling what kind of policies and thus what type of ideology it is.
it is insignificant. you maybe got too excited about a discussion board loudmouth. trying to go from overlap to equals underscores that.I used a cliche to describe the degree of comparison. The argument in no way depends on that. You even agree on the tenant of the argument admitting 'overlaps' but try to dismiss it as insignificant.
you guys have the same penchant for exaggeration and demonizing the target, btw.
so there's a little bit of overlap there, too
I never saw it that way. Only those of you who wish to twist words do. He even came out and said overlap isn't the same as equal. If I thought he was equating me with Nazi's, I would have called him on it. I had no reason to. Glad I didn't say anything also, because you and Fuzzy both stepped in it.
That 'both' includes me? If it does, what mind reading did I do on my post?
Oh, I see where the misconception might be.
"talking about equating you with a Nazi" is not equal to "equating you with a Nazi"...
does not include you.
does include Fuzzy, to whom my remark was addressed, and WC, with whom I compared him.
Had me thinking the for a sec.
away as you retreat from position to position. Fact is that those overlaps that you agree with include: sympathizes with Hitler, supports a eugenics programs and supports totalitarian limitations of civil liberties. Do you deny that?
I said the question was fair to be asked at this point: 'is he a nazi." I did not call him a Nazi. You don't find that someone holds those types of views to be significant. I agree that he as an individual is not significant but I simply ask if its fair to call someone with those views a nazi.
Apparently not so much for you but at what point is it fair to call someone a Nazi? Do they have to actually wear the memorabilia? After all we are trying to put his 'views' into context.
To that point you have agreed that he thinks like a Nazi but do not think he is a Nazi. Thats just an argument of degree. Hes s either way.
I am going after him again. He is ing annoying and if you tell him hes being stupid enough in forthright and factually consistent terms he does stop. If you think its boorish, you go ahead and continue going Richard Gere to his Julia Roberts. I think that as well as the allowance of his 'views' to not only go unrefuted but instead supported by yourself to be boorish.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 01-29-2012 at 02:41 PM.
nope
hysterical nonsense, tbh
He's boorish and ill-tempered too. That's another resemblance.
You just going to go with emotional appeal? You know what hysterics means. None of that is going on. Quit being a mealy mouthed little : if you are going to support his arguments or right to do so or what you think that you are doing then at least do it right.
If you do not like my approach then don't do this passive aggressive garbage trying to appeal to my emotional side to get me to stop. I know you do not like my mean spirited approach but it does work. I actually did feel bad for him the last time you tried this tact but he started his diatribes again.
If you continue with this attempt to curb my approach because you do not approve of my methodology i am just going to ignore you and continue going after him and you can stew on it for all i care. I have weighed the two and feel my way is better. Argue the points I am actually making or this discussion between you and i is over.
I'm just giving my opinion about your approach, dude. It looks silly. What you do with that opinion is your business. I don't particularly care to modify or curb anything you might do, still lest to have some petty dispute about it: you're a horrible conversationalist.
So does anyone think that tying government services to the reproductive rights of women of a particular segment of the population is NOT eugenics?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
