Reply With Quote
Nothing but I wasn't the one proclaiming that I'd risk my life to save the skittles. It's nice that you ended up putting in a minimal amount of effort saving the Syrian skittles. I'm sure they are grateful.
Given some very modest amounts of money.
What have you done?
Nothing but I wasn't the one proclaiming that I'd risk my life to save the skittles. It's nice that you ended up putting in a minimal amount of effort saving the Syrian skittles. I'm sure they are grateful.
We all have to make moral decisions.
Me: "Look that person is drowning, we should save him"
You: "I don't give a about them. Let them die, why aren't you jumping in to save them?"
Me: "I can't swim."
You: "Well, you must not care, and since you aren't saving them they deserve to drown anyway".
Is that what you are going for? That is your morally superior "argument"?
Conservative moral and intellectual bankruptcy to a "T".
No solutions. No human empathy.
Intellectual bankruptcy:
Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)
argumentum ad hominem tu quoque
(also known as: “you too” fallacy, hypocrisy, personal inconsistency)
Description: Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.
This argument is so bad, it has a name.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...inem-Tu-quoque
Conservatives use it all the time here.
I'm sure you think you were making a big point here. You did, but not the one you wanted.
lol okay I promise if I see a drowning person I'll follow your lead and scream "I'll save you!" then I'll run to the waters edge and throw some quarters at the person.
Moral bankruptcy:
"I won't risk my life at all to help anyone."
selfish
[sel-fish]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2.
characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself:
Intellectual bankruptcy:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...rawman-FallacyStrawman Fallacy
Description: Subs uting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.
This argument is so bad, it has a name.
Conservatives use it all the time here.
I'm sure you think you were making a big point here. You did, but not the one you wanted.
You didn't
The whole point of this thread was to point out the moral failings of conservatism.
Pointing out the intellectual failings too, is just a plus, IMO.
By all means Snakeboy, please keep making my points for me.
Don't take a serious subject seriously, or think though the moral implications of a human tragedy with all the misery in a thoughtful, insightful, or respectful way.
Before placing yourself on a morality pedestal I think you should learn how to swim RG
I am willing to accept risk to myself, and my family, from letting in refugees.
You aren't.
The risk is vanishingly small. The benefits to those we can help, immense.
The only reason not to accept the risk, is to weigh human beings who are suffering as worthless.
So you accepted risk when there was no risk?
Seriously though, you are either trying to troll me, or just too upset to have a productive conversation.
Either way, I have other things to do. You seem smart enough to have a decent conversation with. That you don't, says more about you than anything you can about me here, becuase your choice is played out with each post.
No I just wanted to know what you actually did after all your moral grandstanding. I figured the answer would be "not much" and it was.
You stopped having decent conversations a long time ago RG. You're almost at boutons level at this point.
Another choice. Another failure.
(shrugs)
I guess, if that is what you think is important. Peace.
Got any more naked Melania pics?
He's right, RG.
They're important.
Another choice, another failure.
???
Your question here is too short to make out.
Financial quiz time:
If I reduce my debt by cutting back on optional spending in order to allocate as much money as possible in the short term to debt retirement and take on no new debt, does that increase my free cash flow in the longer term?
Read what you wrote...
You credit yourself for accepting the risk (so noble) and then explain (correctly) that there really was no risk. You did nothing RandomGuy.
Man, do your posts reek of desperation. You are trying harder to discredit me personally than you are trying to justify your position.Read what you wrote...
You credit yourself for accepting the risk (
First, lets deal with basic math.
"no risk".
Math quiz:
Is a small positive number greater, smaller, or equal to zero?
But that is a quibble.
The other half of what you are going for here is so poorly reasoned, it is hard to know where to start.
The whole point of accepting refugees is that the risk is small individually, which you seemed to accept. That is my entire point, and completely destroys your entire "don't help" position.
So which is it?
No/little risk?
or
Too much risk?
Pick one or the other. If you want to keep saying I do nothing you prove the OP's "coward" point. If you want to say the risk is too big, you have to justify that measurement, which you can't, and you know it.
Or continue to choose to do what I asked you to do, which is lame trolling. I need as many examples of conservative failures as I can get to prove my other theme of conservative intellectual/moral bankruptcy. The other option is man up, and admit that, shockingly, a liberal might have made a good point.
Your choice. Bravery or ...?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-25-2017 at 04:27 PM. Reason: grammar/clarity
Be happy to answer your question, if you would do me the respect of answering mine first. I didn't think it was that hard, and feel it is important.
If the level of additional risk to any given person in the US is less than that of, say, choking to death on food, how do you justify NOT allowing people who might be tortured/killed into the country?
[edit]
You have asked a very good and important question, imo. It should be answered by anyone taking my position, but you first.
Alternately, we could go back to the point where there was a decent discussion. Shocking, I know.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
