Reply With Quote
Not at all what I said, but your concession here is logged and saved for future use
You know that is too personal a question for you to ask.
Please follow the rules.
Not at all what I said, but your concession here is logged and saved for future use
What a petulant little of a whiny post.
look, chump involved in another derailed thread
actually, not ironic at all. find a derailed thread in the political forum with pages of back and forth, and there's a good chance you are involved
Actually is is ironic, since if it's not me involved in such an exchange, it's you. Or maybe the both of us. Don't bother getting defensive about it, you're already getting too personal for vy65's taste.
Rasict...
Nominating by race.
Racist...
you're doing enough of that for both of us
Don't get pissy about your e-rep. You earned it.
projection as a result of being defensive
Not at all. I own my arguments. You're trying to act like you don't do the same thing.projection as a result of being defensive
At the risk of getting too personal for vy65's delicagte sensibilities, that is a move on your part.
Technically, nominating someone with ethnicity as a factor is, by definition, racist, yes.
In the sense that race was considered.
One could also make a valid argument that favoring one race over another is racism.
Such thin arguments though, paper over rather glaring holes in the past. If you want to re-visit affirmative action debate, you should create a thread on it, probably get a fairly active discussion.
Personally, I am comfortable with technical racism in this matter. Just as I am comfortable with murder in some cir stances.
I draw the line though between good-faith attempts to redress employment imbalances, and the kind of blanket stupidity of "(race X) is bad because (undesirable behavior by cherry-picked anecdotes)"
I don't quite agree. It won't dominate, but it will be part of that circus, and already is.
(shudders)
Bork was obviously a ty pick. Must have been one of the first symptoms of Reagans eventual dementia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_BorkOn October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the "Saturday Night Massacre", U.S. President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, following Cox's request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General, ****** Richardson, to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson's top deputy, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also considered the order "fundamentally wrong"[16] and also resigned, making Bork the Acting Attorney General. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox, an act found illegal in November of that year in a suit brought by Ralph Nader.
That right there, should disqualify you from SCOTUS. ing period, /debate.
(edit)
**** for the "E1iott" word that shall not be spoken here... LOL
Some people don't even want to be operated on by black surgeons, amirite Wild Cobra
sounds like you agree, then
Probably the same reason you cannot admit your 'should' arguments even existed or that the GOP does the same so what difference does it make beyond demonstrating through action show where you allegiances really are.
"lacks credibility" is probably not the best way to phrase that. "is hypocritical" is better.
FWIW:
Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"
Democrats are completely, 100% right when they say that the GOP is wrong not to consider or vote. The claim is credible, because it is true, regardless of who makes the point.Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
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.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
Giving in to ad hominem-style thinking is a bad way to consider truth.
Quote Originally Posted by ElNono
I don't think it will dominate the media cycle with a presidential campaign ongoing, tbh...Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I don't quite agree. It won't dominate, but it will be part of that circus, and already is.
Not quite.
"to a certain or fairly significant extent or degree; fairly."
If you prefer, "It won't entirely dominate, but still be a significant part of the debate".
(nods) All fair points.
Personally I think Democrats nationally have been taking the black vote for granted a bit too much, and need to do more, so I would be good either way.
back to semantics
well when the same people act obtuse about the meanings of words you get what you get. It's how you dissemble that causes the phenomenon.
I stopped playing along with the stupidity and don't let you get away with it anymore. You guys apparently like going around in those insipid circles. I know you don't argue in good faith.
(shrugs)
Whatever it takes to make you happy. Let me know.
He cleared it up which is what I would think you would want in a real discussion.
If you want to just play the contradiction busting game, then yeah I think you scored a mild victory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions