Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
thaiboxerken said:
Please show me where your assertions are supported by science.
Click to expand...

I thought you wanted me to stop. In any case, it's off-topic here. Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss all of the recent research into human evolution and genetics that the left refuses to acknowledge? Or the obvious differences between men and women which the left believes can only be due to oppressive, heteronormative, patriarchal, caucasoidalicious social norms rather than biology. If I have time, I might even participate.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I thought you wanted me to stop. In any case, it's off-topic here. Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss all of the recent research into human evolution and genetics that the left refuses to acknowledge? Or the obvious differences between men and women which the left believes can only be due to oppressive, heteronormative, patriarchal, caucasoidalicious social norms rather than biology. If I have time, I might even participate.
Click to expand...
You make unsupported claims. When called on it you make even more unsupported claims, then say it's off topic, trying to justify you lack of evidence then close with more unsupported claims.

My post is very much on topic as is highlights the difference between those who support one party versus the other. HRC is not dead and one of the reasons is the opposing parties candidates are, or at least using rhetoric that is and their supporters (those that are man enough to admit it) spend their precious breath attacking the other side.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
<snip>

My post is very much on topic as is highlights the difference between those who support one party versus the other.
Click to expand...

Such reasoning could be used to justify virtually any topic in USA Politics. All you have to do is claim that the views on the topic break down along partisan lines, whether they do or not.

HRC is not dead and one of the reasons is the opposing parties candidates are, or at least using rhetoric that is and their supporters (those that are man enough to admit it) spend their precious breath attacking the other side.
Click to expand...

Parse that statement, I cannot. No matter. It may be the dumbest statement I have ever not understood.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Parse that statement, I cannot. No matter. It may be the dumbest statement I have ever not understood.
Click to expand...

It could have been written more clearly but it's still understandable and largely accurate. Of course that assumes you put in honest effort to understand it.

So is that statement really beyond your reading comprehension or did you just not bother to try to understand it? Neither option is terribly great on a skeptics discussion forum.
 
The_Animus said:
It could have been written more clearly but it's still understandable and largely accurate. Of course that assumes you put in honest effort to understand it.

So is that statement really beyond your reading comprehension or did you just not bother to try to understand it? Neither option is terribly great on a skeptics discussion forum.
Click to expand...

Oh the very rare example of the Rule of So coupled with a false dichotomy! Not a terribly great response on skeptics' discussion forum.

The sentence makes zero sense. But if you can parse it out, rather than wallowing in fallacies, why don't you explain it?
 
The_Animus said:
It could have been written more clearly but it's still understandable and largely accurate. Of course that assumes you put in honest effort to understand it.
Click to expand...

I put in more effort than it deserved, which was the time it took to read the sentence twice.

So is that statement really beyond your reading comprehension or did you just not bother to try to understand it? Neither option is terribly great on a skeptics discussion forum.
Click to expand...

Now that you have implicitly challenged me, I think I can guess at what DavidJames meant. I had to put myself in his shoes, mentally speaking of course. A tight fit, to say the least, but I managed to squeeze a few toes in, which probably was sufficient. I will restate, and you can tell me if you guessed (and that's all we can really do with such innutritious word salad) at the same meaning :

"HRC is not dead [politically,] and one of the reasons is that the [Republican Party's] candidates are [dead politically], or at least using rhetoric that is [dead politically,] and [the Republican candidates'] supporters (those [who] are [courageous] enough to admit [their support]) spend their precious breath attacking the [Democrats]."

Is that what you got too? The only thing I can conclude for sure is translating from liberal partisanese to English is often not worth the effort.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Oh the very rare example of the Rule of So coupled with a false dichotomy! Not a terribly great response on skeptics' discussion forum.

The sentence makes zero sense. But if you can parse it out, rather than wallowing in fallacies, why don't you explain it?
Click to expand...

And yet I was correct as evidenced by sunmasters follow up below.

sunmaster14 said:
I put in more effort than it deserved, which was the time it took to read the sentence twice.



Now that you have implicitly challenged me, I think I can guess at what DavidJames meant. I had to put myself in his shoes, mentally speaking of course. A tight fit, to say the least, but I managed to squeeze a few toes in, which probably was sufficient. I will restate, and you can tell me if you guessed (and that's all we can really do with such innutritious word salad) at the same meaning :

"HRC is not dead [politically,] and one of the reasons is that the [Republican Party's] candidates are [dead politically], or at least using rhetoric that is [dead politically,] and [the Republican candidates'] supporters (those [who] are [courageous] enough to admit [their support]) spend their precious breath attacking the [Democrats]."

Is that what you got too? The only thing I can conclude for sure is translating from liberal partisanese to English is often not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Yep, you got it. Not difficult when you actually try.
 
sunmaster14 said:
"HRC is not dead [politically,] and one of the reasons is that the [Republican Party's] candidates are [dead politically], or at least using rhetoric that is [dead politically,] and [the Republican candidates'] supporters (those [who] are [courageous] enough to admit [their support]) spend their precious breath attacking the [Democrats]."

Is that what you got too? The only thing I can conclude for sure is translating from liberal partisanese to English is often not worth the effort.
Click to expand...

Wow... is that what he meant? That is not what I got. I thought he was trying to explain why Hillary was not dead politically because Republicans were just using political rhetoric and their supporters were only attacking Democrats.

It is as pointless as it is worthless.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I thought you wanted me to stop. In any case, it's off-topic here. Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss all of the recent research into human evolution and genetics that the left refuses to acknowledge? Or the obvious differences between men and women which the left believes can only be due to oppressive, heteronormative, patriarchal, caucasoidalicious social norms rather than biology. If I have time, I might even participate.
Click to expand...

Biology is destiny then?
 
16.5 said:
Oh the very rare example of the Rule of So coupled with a false dichotomy! Not a terribly great response on skeptics' discussion forum.

The sentence makes zero sense. But if you can parse it out, rather than wallowing in fallacies, why don't you explain it?
Click to expand...

Oh the very rare example of the Fallacy of So.
 
sunmaster14 said:
:thumbsup: I feel like I deserve a prize. Or maybe a shower.
Click to expand...

Or a shower? You really feel dirty for having taken an effort and figuring out a rather obvious, if awkward, couple of sentences?

If you'd avoid the hyperbole and score-settling, would your post really lose anything other than the gotcha points.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Or a shower? You really feel dirty for having taken an effort and figuring out a rather obvious, if awkward, couple of sentences?

If you'd avoid the hyperbole and score-settling, would your post really lose anything other than the gotcha points.
Click to expand...

It's laughable to watch you continue to accuse other posters of score settling and partisanship.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Or a shower? You really feel dirty for having taken an effort and figuring out a rather obvious, if awkward, couple of sentences?
Click to expand...
I pride myself in making my points in short awkward sentences rather then paragraphs of pseudo-intellectual, Dunning-Kruger level bloviation.
Foolmewunz said:
If you'd avoid the hyperbole and score-settling, would your post really lose anything other than the gotcha points.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's not so much what would be lost as being the only thing to be gained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom