Quote: (01-21-2017 03:44 AM)weambulance Wrote:
Do you know how to say things in less than novel length?
Do you know how to make a sensible argument in good faith that doesn't rely on a logical fallacy to hold itself up?
Quote:Quote:
Or is one of your tactics to try to overwhelm people with your sheer verbosity while only actually making one or two points? Very often, less is more.
You could stand to take your own advice here.
Fewer logical fallacies are better than more logical fallacies in dialogue. Less deflection is better than more deflection. Less backpedaling and obfuscation beats more backpedaling and obfuscation. Overall, less is more.
Try it.
Quote:Quote:
You and Kona immediately jumped on the idea of "OMG minorities about to be thrown in concentration camps" with your emotional overreaction to the idea of removing the 14th Amendment.
And the simple response from you should have been: "Nah, any repeal of the 14th amendment wouldn't need to end equal protection. That's not happening, nobody should support that."
Done.
What do we get from you? Defensiveness.
All you had to do was own up to the fuckery, firmly disavow it, and say "my bad, I was off".
Instead, you try to shift the blame over to us and act like we're the ones with the problem.
Quote:Quote:
Yours was modestly worse than Kona's but he specifically said, and I quote,
Quote:Kona Wrote:
Since the right wingers have some pull now, are they going to use every chance they can to force this white supremacy stuff into existence?
Just read the first sentence of this post. Maybe not the ops intent but it says to me "Hey since our side has the votes, maybe its time to make state sanctioned descrimination legal again.
I'm sick of constantly seeing this sort of ridiculous kneejerk response. So yes, I pointed out the wild, baseless, implicitly biased overreaction.
Nothing wild and nothing baseless about it. That presumption and its defensiveness is the problem.
Again, all you had to do was say "nah, equal protection is staying no matter what."
It wasn't hard. But did you say that? No. You went on defence instead before proceeding to attack those who expressed concern.
Again, why was simply disavowing the fuckery in the first place so difficult for you? Can you explain to us why you didn't just do the straightforward, common sense thing and say "hey, equal protection isn't going anywhere - any repeal will keep it around, so don't worry about it"?
Was it just too hard for you? If so, why?
Quote:Quote:
And seeing how my first motherfucking post was:
Quote:weambulance Wrote:
It's obvious we need to get rid of the "if you're here and you have a kid, that kid is a citizen no matter what" nonsense. That's not what the 14th Amendment intended and was a later unchallenged "interpretation".
Yes, my argument from the start was that was what we needed to do. Not remove equal protection. That fact that I did not explicitly promise to grasp equal protection to my bosom for safekeeping does not mean that I meant to repeal it.
That first post said you sought to get rid of birthright citizenship. It made no mention at all of equal protection. Your very next post contains your first mention of equal protection (following multiple posts expressing concern on the topic), and that post is designed explicitly to attack those concerned about losing it.
This is not merely about the fact that you did not "grasp equal protection to your bosom". It is about the fact that your very first word in this thread with regard to equal protection (and your only word until I called you out) was not a defence of it, but an attack on those who expressed concern about losing it.
And you wanted people to think that, just because you were silent on the topic of equal protection in your very first post, there was no issue with your stance here and everyone who called you out was just "fear mongering"?
Is this your argument in "good faith"?
Quote:Quote:
So nice try, but I'm sorry the actual facts are inconvenient for your narrative of systematic oppression and dismissal. You make enormous assumptions and put words in peoples' mouths, rely on straw man arguments, and then try to play the morale high ground game. It's absurd.
There is no "narrative of systematic oppression and dismissal". That is you putting words in
my mouth to cover up for your nonsensical stance. All we see here is you talking nonsense and getting called out on it. That's it. There is no straw man, and there is no "enormous assumption". My argument is based on facts, and the facts are your written word, which is in this thread for all to see.
Quote:Quote:
If you didn't react with outrage to simple questions and responded with less emotionally loaded language--perhaps try to inform rather than criticize once in awhile--maybe people would be more willing to engage in a dialogue with you rather than dismiss you.
If you argued in good faith instead of backpedaling, obfuscating, deflecting, and putting words in people's mouths while pretending that their very legitimate concerns aren't worthwhile at all, maybe people would be more willing to engage in a dialogue with you.