• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: President Trump: Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Provide proof that both sides are equally bad.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that both sides are equally bad. Go back and look.

ETA: What I have said, is that if it is acceptable to condemn ALL Trump supporters as bigots and bigot-toleraters on the basis of SOME Trump supporters being bigots, then it is equally valid to condemn ALL Clinton supporters on the same basis.

Group A contains some X. The presence of X within Group A taints all of group A. If Group B also contains some X, then the presence of X within Group A should also taint all of Group B.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Has this been posted yet? It's stunning!

We Redacted Everything That's Not a Verifiably True Statement From Trump's Time Interview About Truth
Click to expand...

That's not stunning, it's sensationalism.

Take any editorial, take any interview with any person of any type or level of renown. Then go through and redact anything that isn't VERIFIABLY TRUE. That means every opinion, every interpretation, every assumption, every bit of common courtesy and conversation. Leave only those things that are explicitly VERIFIABLE as true. In any given case you're going to get a whole bunch of black. This isn't some kind of novel journalism, this is the manufacture of drama for the sake of OMG ratings and outrage.

A much more effective approach would be to redact anything that is VERIFIABLY FALSE. Trump would probably have a lot more black statements than just about anyone else. The sensationalist twist for ratings is wholly unnecessary with this guy.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I never claimed that both sides are equally bad. Go back and look.

ETA: What I have said, is that if it is acceptable to condemn ALL Trump supporters as bigots and bigot-toleraters on the basis of SOME Trump supporters being bigots, then it is equally valid to condemn ALL Clinton supporters on the same basis.

Group A contains some X. The presence of X within Group A taints all of group A. If Group B also contains some X, then the presence of X within Group A should also taint all of Group B.
Click to expand...

And, here is that false equivalence, again. Say group A contains 75% of X, but group B contains 10% of x, would you really condemn both equally? How about if group a contains 50%, but group b contains 25%?

Of course, if you really, really like group A despite the 50% of x, all you have to do is claim that polls showing 50% of x don't meet your standards, so you have no idea how much of x group A has. It won't fool anyone, though.
 
Argumemnon said:
Speaking of providing proof for repeated and unsupported claims, how about your claim that Trump's election came in part because of the "deplorables" comment?
Click to expand...

I have been quite clear in referencing this as my opinion. It is (and will continue to be) my opinion that her comment, among several other factors, is likely to have impacted voter decisions.

And just like you, I'll continue to argue my opinion until someone provides actual proof that my opinion is false. Other people giving me a counter opinion isn't proof - it's a contrary opinion. ;)
 
wareyin said:
And, here is that false equivalence, again. Say group A contains 75% of X, but group B contains 10% of x, would you really condemn both equally? How about if group a contains 50%, but group b contains 25%?

Of course, if you really, really like group A despite the 50% of x, all you have to do is claim that polls showing 50% of x don't meet your standards, so you have no idea how much of x group A has. It won't fool anyone, though.
Click to expand...

None of this is what I've done. Many of the Clinton supporters have been hating on Trump supporters (not Trump himself), and have written them off as "supporting" or "condoning" racism and sexism. The argument has been made that Trump supporters are bad people, because they continued to support a candidate who was also supported by bigots. The presence of some of Trump's supporters being bigots has been sufficient in their eyes to taint ALL of Trump's supporters. They've all been dirtied by association.

It is fallacious to claim that Group A is ALL tainted because there are some X within A. It's further fallacious to prop up that lack of logic by claiming that A should have been B to avoid being tainted by X when B also contains X.


ETA: Seriously - this would be like someone claiming that all Muslims are bad because some Muslims are terrorists. Especially if they're busy implying that Muslims should all convert to Christianity. Christianity also contains terrorists. The presence of *more* terrorists being Muslims isn't sufficient to support conversion on the basis of not wanting to be associated with terrorists! It's an argument full of gaping holes when used against Muslims, and it's an argument full of holes when it's used against politics too. Both of these are fallacious and flawed arguments.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Has this been posted yet? It's stunning!

We Redacted Everything That's Not a Verifiably True Statement From Trump's Time Interview About Truth
Click to expand...

Note the awesome correction at the end:
Correction: We actually missed another false statement. Trump received 306 electoral college votes on election day, but thanks to two “faithless” electors, his official tally is 304; his claims that he “ended up at 306” and “ended up getting to 306" are technically false.
Click to expand...
 
Does demanding...nda getting...a vote on the AHC and then pulling the AHC at ,literally the last minute count?
 
Emily's Cat said:
None of this is what I've done. Many of the Clinton supporters have been hating on Trump supporters (not Trump himself), and have written them off as "supporting" or "condoning" racism and sexism. The argument has been made that Trump supporters are bad people
Click to expand...
No, that argument has not been made, at least not here. I'm pretty sure it's been something along the lines of bigots, ok with bigots, or conned by the bigot. Then again, you have argued that being conned makes one stupid, so perhaps you can't see how wrong you are.
, because they continued to support a candidate who was also supported by bigots. The presence of some of Trump's supporters being bigots has been sufficient in their eyes to taint ALL of Trump's supporters. They've all been dirtied by association.

It is fallacious to claim that Group A is ALL tainted because there are some X within A. It's further fallacious to prop up that lack of logic by claiming that A should have been B to avoid being tainted by X when B also contains X.
Click to expand...

Again, you are equating a group that's 50% bigots (remember, your poll, which only touched on one aspect of bigotry found 50% held bigoted views. Do you think that also including the sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc would lower the percentage of bigots?) with a group that has a significantly lower percentage of bigots. Further, bigots, like the KKK, supported Trump because of his racist and bigoted words. There just isn't anything like that from the other side, so your false equivalency is just not going to fly.


ETA: Seriously - this would be like someone claiming that all Muslims are bad because some Muslims are terrorists. Especially if they're busy implying that Muslims should all convert to Christianity. Christianity also contains terrorists. The presence of *more* terrorists being Muslims isn't sufficient to support conversion on the basis of not wanting to be associated with terrorists! It's an argument full of gaping holes when used against Muslims, and it's an argument full of holes when it's used against politics too. Both of these are fallacious and flawed arguments.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's certainly a fallacious and flawed argument. Too bad it bears no resemblance or relationship to the claim that 50% of Trump supporters were bigots.
 
For goodness sake can you stop this useless bickering. Start a thread in the history section if you want go over the past in such excruciating boring detail.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Provide proof of half.
Click to expand...

My "math:"

- Trump's policies, as he explains them, are essentially Obama's in major areas (mo' better health care, infrastructure spending, even pounding ISIS)
- Most of those voting Trump did not vote for Obama based on opposing exactly these same policies, or claiming to, while rotely repeating their lines
- Difference between Trump/GOP and Obama in these cases: skin color.

There are marked "whitelashes" clearly distinguishable in history following every single black advance. Obama's presidency is absolutely no exception, and Trump rose by riding the wave of unreason that followed a black man. Trump is, in this sense, very much one who owes his political success to a black man, and is very much subordinate to Obama in historic weight; a mindless aftershock, the exact person being of less import than the simple fact that it was time for a racist. Indeed, the most openly racist candidate won the primary, then the presidency.

So, yes, the entire milieu, from voter to candidate, is unequivocally racist, with many parallels in history, large and small.
 
Darat said:
For goodness sake can you stop this useless bickering. Start a thread in the history section if you want go over the past in such excruciating boring detail.
Click to expand...

Is this admin-speak? Did not see it prior to my last post. But if a post, a role-blurring one in this very particular instance, in my humble opinion, speaking with curiosity and absence of malice.
 
Last edited:
Seeing him today I think he's gained at least 10 pounds in the last week. Is he heading into Taft territory? Must be all that high-end ketchup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom