Marriott tells desperate evacuees: Eff off, you aren't getting on our boat

[DMC]

Person A: Marriott sucks for leaving people behind
DMC: what are you white knights doing about it.

Tu quoque.

Tu estupido.

Activism is so easy when you're so passive.

[Chucho]

Blake triggered, mad, taking Ls.

[RandomGuy]

You're one of those liberals who has adopted secularized Christianity. You're such a "good person." DMC is kicking your ass fwiw.

I am an Atheist.

Sorry.

My moral system is vastly superior to that of the bible, but thanks for playing.

[DMC]

I am an Atheist.

Sorry.

My moral system is vastly superior to that of the bible, but thanks for playing.

Your moral system seems to be the kind that doesn't compel you to do anything but run your mouth then fall back on your personal hardships when the need for moral superiority arises.

[RandomGuy]

Only if it's a debate and only if I used a logical debate in the process, which I did not. Where were my premises?

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

I never said that your actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of the claim of the OP. I said that those of you who do nothing about it aren't really that concerned about it, which is different than saying the OP's claim is false. I'm sure it's true, but it's based not on truth of falsehood of the claim, but the repercussions of it. Since the premise was implied that those stranded people were in serious need of evacuation and that Marriott was negligent or morally wrong for not evacuating them, all I needed to do was challenge the moral standards of the poster.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

Randomguy: “I am concerned about this problem.” (claim X)
DMC: “RG didn’t do anything about the problem that he claims to be concerned about” (asserts inconsistency with claim X)
DMC: “Therefore you aren’t concerned.” (claim X is false)

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

[RandomGuy]

Your moral system seems to be the kind that doesn't compel you to do anything but run your mouth then fall back on your personal hardships when the need for moral superiority arises.

Your moral system allows you to put other people at risk, without regard to potential harm to others. As long as you don't feel sick, that is the only thing that matters.

[Blake]

Blake triggered, mad, taking Ls.

Lol objective

[DMC]

Your moral system allows you to put other people at risk, without regard to potential harm to others. As long as you don't feel sick, that is the only thing that matters.

When you get caught up on your bills, you should do something about it.

[DMC]

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

Randomguy: “I am concerned about this problem.” (claim X)
DMC: “RG didn’t do anything about the problem that he claims to be concerned about” (asserts inconsistency with claim X)
DMC: “Therefore you aren’t concerned.” (claim X is false)

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

The alternative is that you're incapable of anything but concern which makes you a useless yapper. Hey you ARE a liberal!

[Blake]

Activism is so easy when you're so passive.

Lol you still don't understand lack of action =/= hypocrisy.

But nice fortune cookie attempt

[RandomGuy]

When you get caught up on your bills, you should do something about it.

Let me know when you incorporate the time value of money into your analysis.

Your ignorance of financial education isn't my concern. Keep making this argument. Please.

[DMC]

Lol you still don't understand lack of action =/= hypocrisy.

But nice fortune cookie attempt

Voiced concerned + lack of action when capable to act = hipocrisy

This is true for anyone who isn't trying to rewrite common ing sense to make blogging = saving lives.

[RandomGuy]

Person A: "X is a problem that needs to be addressed."
DMC: "Have you addressed problem X?"
Person A: "No."
DMC: "Then you do not feel X is a problem we should address."

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2].

Looks like you kicked your own ass.

That is some epic self-pwnage.

[DMC]

Let me know when you incorporate the time value of money into your analysis.

Your ignorance of financial education isn't my concern. Keep making this argument. Please.

I'm the one who does something. Your the one who doesn't because you lack the funds (but have enough to hit the bar regularly).

Just admit the object of your concern is just a talking point to you. You obviously have a rep on here already as a blowhard.

[RandomGuy]

The alternative is that you're incapable of anything but concern which makes you a useless yapper. Hey you ARE a liberal!

So when shown how clearly your reasoning was flawed, you ignored it, then tried for an ad hominem.

Hey you ARE a conservative!

[DMC]

Looks like you kicked your own ass.

That is some epic self-pwnage.

More mental roadblocks for you.

In the first quote I did not dispute the veracity of the claim that X is a problem that needs to be addressed. I merely stated that Person A wasn't genuinely concerned about it.

Logic dude, get some.

[Pavlov]

Man, someone really made an effort to remember some things.

[DMC]

Man, someone really made an effort to remember some things.

3rd thread with the same triggered response.

Chump

[Pavlov]

3rd thread with the same triggered response.

Chump

You prove me right in many, many threads.

DMC

[RandomGuy]

More mental roadblocks for you.

In the first quote I did not dispute the veracity of the claim that X is a problem that needs to be addressed. I merely stated that Person A wasn't genuinely concerned about it.

Logic dude, get some.

Ah, semantics.

Change X to "I believe this is a problem", and your "you don't think it is a problem because of [personal attack]"

Self-pwned.

[Blake]

Voiced concerned + lack of action when capable to act = hipocrisy

This is true for anyone who isn't trying to rewrite common ing sense to make blogging = saving lives.

DMC thinks I can bend time and space to save lives with my yacht.

Neat.

[DMC]

Ah, semantics.

Change X to "I believe this is a problem", and your "you don't think it is a problem because of [personal attack]"

Self-pwned.

So if you change the premise then you're right.

Unfortunately for you the premise that counts is the one you made, not the one you wish you made.

[Blake]

I'm the one who does something.

How many lives did you save during the hurricane

[DMC]

DMC thinks I can bend time and space to save lives with my yacht.

Neat.

You didn't need a yacht to help people in Houston.

Did you?

[Blake]

You didn't need a yacht to help people in Houston.

Did you?

Oh another fallacy. Neat.

Red herring I'm thinking.