• 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.

Where is the Common Ground?

theprestige said:
And look at how the beclowning continues. WilliamSeger wants to talk about Trump's credibility. But having hung his argument on Dan Rather's credibility, he's now stuck having to talk about Dan Rather instead of Trump.
Click to expand...
No, it was Ziggurat and you who kept harping on about Rather's 'credibility'. And we all know why. Deflection and ad hominem attacks are favorite tactics of the right.

The funniest part is, the basic premise is actually worth serious consideration, even if it came from no higher authority than WilliamSeger himself. There was no need to gild the lily by dragging Dan Rather into it.
Click to expand...
All WilliamSeger said was "I think it was Dan Rather who pointed out that there could come a crisis where it's very important that the American public believes Trump, but most of them won't.". But the mere mention of Rather's name was enough to bring the attack dogs out.

Time and time again we see these same tactics coming the right - and frankly I'm getting sick of it. Why bother even trying to find common ground when all you do is rip us to pieces?
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No, it was Ziggurat and you who kept harping on about Rather's 'credibility'. And we all know why. Deflection and ad hominem attacks are favorite tactics of the right.

All WilliamSeger said was "I think it was Dan Rather who pointed out that there could come a crisis where it's very important that the American public believes Trump, but most of them won't.". But the mere mention of Rather's name was enough to bring the attack dogs out.

Time and time again we see these same tactics coming the right - and frankly I'm getting sick of it. Why bother even trying to find common ground when all you do is rip us to pieces?
Click to expand...

Hell Trumps supporters know better than to listen to what he says, that was the whole point of the take him seriously not literally. You aren't supposed to believe anything he says, that is a feature.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
No, it was Ziggurat and you who kept harping on about Rather's 'credibility'. And we all know why. Deflection and ad hominem attacks are favorite tactics of the right.

All WilliamSeger said was "I think it was Dan Rather who pointed out that there could come a crisis where it's very important that the American public believes Trump, but most of them won't.". But the mere mention of Rather's name was enough to bring the attack dogs out.

Time and time again we see these same tactics coming the right - and frankly I'm getting sick of it. Why bother even trying to find common ground when all you do is rip us to pieces?
Click to expand...

I also rebutted WilliamSeger's argument independently from his appeal to Dan Rather. Why did you miss that?
 
theprestige said:
I also rebutted WilliamSeger's argument independently from his appeal to Dan Rather. Why did you miss that?
Click to expand...


You're digging the hole deeper. Even if you took "there could come a crisis..." as an "argument," then a "rebuttal" would be something along the lines of "no, that won't happen because..." If you want to say that the prediction is based on an argument and your rebuttal is "Dan Rather has no credibility," then I suggest you identify the argument before attempting to rebut it.
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
Things we can agree on:
Ice cream good. Cancer bad. Not everybody should wear stretchy outfits for sports. Trump cheats at golf.
Click to expand...
The first three are self evident. The last is plausible, but I've only heard testimony from folks I don't know much about.

Okay, very plausible.
 
theprestige said:
Another way to look at it is that Trump spews a lot of random crap on Twitter, and occasionally takes action on something he referred to on Twitter. So instead of saying, "this is important!" about every tweet, you could conceivably wait and see what he actually does. That's what I do, and it works pretty well. Of course, I'm tuning out all the overhyped buffoonery, so my view of his presidency is substantially less the-sky-is-falling than the view seen by people who who insist on taking all his tweets seriously.
Click to expand...
The spew you get to matters. At present, a majority of Republicans believe that the free press is mostly the enemy of the people. We all know where that comes from (not just Twitter, admittedly).
 
theprestige said:
And look at how the beclowning continues. WilliamSeger wants to talk about Trump's credibility. But having hung his argument on Dan Rather's credibility, he's now stuck having to talk about Dan Rather instead of Trump.

The funniest part is, the basic premise is actually worth serious consideration, even if it came from no higher authority than WilliamSeger himself. There was no need to gild the lily by dragging Dan Rather into it.
Click to expand...
Um, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that you're disparaging Zig's irrelevant rebuttal. After all, Rather's comment stands or falls on its own, but it was Zig who brought in Rather's reputation.
 
phiwum said:
Um, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that you're disparaging Zig's irrelevant rebuttal. After all, Rather's comment stands or falls on its own, but it was Zig who brought in Rather's reputation.
Click to expand...

WilliamSeger appealed to Dan Rather. Remarking on the quality of that authority is entirely appropriate.

It's also entirely appropriate to point and laugh, because appealing to Dan Rather is really ******* funny.
 
theprestige said:
WilliamSeger appealed to Dan Rather. Remarking on the quality of that authority is entirely appropriate.

It's also entirely appropriate to point and laugh, because appealing to Dan Rather is really ******* funny.
Click to expand...


"Appealed?" I simply cited my best recollection of the source of an excellent point, lest I be accused of pretending to be wiser than I am, but it might have been some other wise person. And I can't help but notice that another smarmy smear of Rather while ironically accusing someone else of logical fallacies is the best you can do for a "rebuttal" of that point. Looks like we're finished here.
 
theprestige said:
WilliamSeger appealed to Dan Rather. Remarking on the quality of that authority is entirely appropriate.

It's also entirely appropriate to point and laugh, because appealing to Dan Rather is really ******* funny.
Click to expand...
It wasn't an appeal to authority, but only an attribution (one of which he seemed unsure). We should focus on the plausibility of what was said, not the probable author.
 
phiwum said:
It wasn't an appeal to authority, but only an attribution (one of which he seemed unsure). We should focus on the plausibility of what was said, not the probable author.
Click to expand...
Motte and bailey. If people accept Dan Rather's authority, then that was what was intended all along. And if not? "I didn't really mean for you to consider Dan Rather. I just mentioned him because reasons."

And I actually posted a rebuttal of the plausibility, setting aside the appeal to authority. But everybody seems to be ignoring that, in favor of talking about Dan Rather. Making fun of Dan Rather, and of arguments that depend on Dan Rather, is fine by me, so I'm happy to play along. If you want to talk about something else, feel free to change the subject any time.
 
Dan Rather's observation about the risk of Trump being not believed in the event of a real crisis is something any observant, thinking person might make. Trump's demonstrably voluminous lying--a deluge of utterly unsurpassed proportion--makes such a notion spring spontaneously to the discerning mind. Rather's checkered past in the reliability department has nothing at all to do with it.

And I did not get the slightest impression of Rather having been appealed to as an 'authority'; the reporting of his remark here was simply attributive as I read it.

The Trumpist's default position of smearing detractors in order to distract is as maddeningly infantile as it is predictable.
 
theprestige said:
My bad. No common ground yet, after all. Unless we agree that nobody - not even you - is really taking Trump's tweets that seriously.
Click to expand...
This was writte 2 days ago, so excuse my being late, but here we have fundamental DISagreement!

NO, not "nobody" is taking Trump's tweet seriously, nor are they MEANT to not be taken seriously. They are meant to be taken seriously by very large numbers of Americans, and tens of millions do take them seriously - agreed?

However, your post implies that Trump's tweets are, as a rule, not true, not fair, not good, or lack any other quality that frustrates their being taken seriously. I agree with you on that!

So why does the POTUS take valuable time out of his tight daily schedule to tweet stuff that sane, rational people oughtn't take seriously?
-> Because he consciously, with focus, seeks to activate the insane, irrational among Americans into his employ.

That cannot be a good thing, nor should it be ignored or downplayed. This is the very core, the stand-out characteristic of the Trump presidency: that it goes out if its way to seek, find and use the very WORST of America.

It's really simple: any acceptable President would not tweet day in day out things - hateful, petty, small, nasty things - that nobody ought to take seriously.
 
Lurch said:
Dan Rather's observation about the risk of Trump being not believed in the event of a real crisis is something any observant, thinking person might make. Trump's demonstrably voluminous lying--a deluge of utterly unsurpassed proportion--makes such a notion spring spontaneously to the discerning mind. Rather's checkered past in the reliability department has nothing at all to do with it.

And I did not get the slightest impression of Rather having been appealed to as an 'authority'; the reporting of his remark here was simply attributive as I read it.

The Trumpist's default position of smearing detractors in order to distract is as maddeningly infantile as it is predictable.
Click to expand...


There could be a crisis that tests the prediction if an impeachment trial for obstruction of justice comes down to believing either Comey's story or Trump's denials, since Americans don't like James Comey, but they trust him way more than they do President Trump, poll says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom