• 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.
BobTheCoward said:
So people who have been die hard fans of their college sports team cheer every year for forty years because the team somehow managed to recruit the most aesthetically pleasing roster to the alumni every year.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy, non sequitur.

Sometimes they like the team because their parents like it, or because it's a symbol of their home town, etc.
 
Argumemnon said:
Do you really think they'd cheer for the team if there were no one in it? Or do you think that the players and staff are inseparable from the team itself?
Click to expand...

I think they would. I honestly don't think that would be enough to stop super fans.

The players are separable from the team. In college sports they separate in 5 years or less. Rooting for the players on team x regardless of who the players are sounds a lot like rooting for team X and not the players.
 
Argumemnon said:
They'd cheer for a team without players, you think? That's a pretty bold claim, but then it's the only one that means you don't have to backtrack on your earlier claim.
Click to expand...

It is also something that crosses your mind when you feel like the only avid football fan without a team surrounded by a world of football team fans with various levels of knowle about their team.

There are people who cheer for teams that I could tell them folded two years ago and they wouldn't know I was making it up.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
That's not a support for your claim.

And we're talking about countries, not sports.
Click to expand...

First, I'm not putting that forward as evidence of my claim as you didn't question my evidence for my claim. You questioned if I believed my claim.

Both are an organization that last longer than any given set of members. I'm trying to establish that it is common for support of an organization to be independent of the members in it using a case that I am surprised to find push back on.
 
Aren't you guys quibbling about some variant of the Fallacy of Composition?

I can make a pretty good case for the fact that the Dolphins suck, without it following that each of their players suck individually. Though they very well might!
 
Mumbles said:
What he meant was that he'd be doing a lot of spinning...
Click to expand...

You know, instead of blaming this on a lack of political savvy by Trump or Ryan, why won't someone focus on the real problem: the bill itself.

It was a disaster.

If they would write a law that's not an embarrassment, it's a lot easier.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Aren't you guys quibbling about some variant of the Fallacy of Composition?

I can make a pretty good case for the fact that the Dolphins suck, without it following that each of their players suck individually. Though they very well might!
Click to expand...

The issue is if a lot people care about the organization the dolphins while not caring about the players that make up the dolphins.

And if that applies to countries. When a person says America signed a treaty in year x, and America should honor that even when the current government was elected to oppose it, that the person is not referring to Americans, but the entity itself. And they are implying Americans have an obligation to the entity America but not their fellow Americans.

I think that people legitimately confuse a nation as independent of it's people.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The issue is if a lot people care about the organization the dolphins while not caring about the players that make up the dolphins.
Click to expand...

People care about the people who make up the Dolphins while they're on the Dolphins. Duh.
And if that applies to countries. When a person says America signed a treaty in year x, and America should honor that even when the current government was elected to oppose it, that the person is not referring to Americans, but the entity itself. And they are implying Americans have an obligation to the entity America but not their fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

The current government should never be confused with a functioning American government, first and foremost. We signed a treaty, we should abide by it. Simple.

I think that people legitimately confuse a nation as independent of it's people.
Click to expand...

I think you confuse a lot of people, frankly.
 
NoahFence said:
The current government should never be confused with a functioning American government, first and foremost. We signed a treaty, we should abide by it. Simple.
Click to expand...

We did not sign the treaty. Nor did our current elected officials. Further, it looks like the current elected officials may think it is a treaty the current government should withdraw from. I don't see how the group that signed the treaty and the current group that needs to abide by it are the same.

If we want to abide by the treaty, then we should abide by the treaty.
 
pgwenthold said:
You know, instead of blaming this on a lack of political savvy by Trump or Ryan, why won't someone focus on the real problem: the bill itself.

It was a disaster.

If they would write a law that's not an embarrassment, it's a lot easier.
Click to expand...


Give them a break. They only had seven years to work on it. Do you have any idea how complicated health care is? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom