UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
except it is you who keeps calling it "forced integration".
if we abolish the IRS, how will red states get their welfare?
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
see4
Well-Known Member
It's an undeniable fact that he and his fellow Klansmen are racist and bigots. It's almost comical how transparent they are, and somehow they feel as if they are being witty.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yes. It is me calling it forced integration, because that's what is happening for those people forced into a human interaction on their own property. If they didn't want the interaction to occur in the first place, and it does anyway against their wishes, they were forced. Pretty obvious.You can argue all around that, but it is a fact you'll never refute.
Since it is a fact, my calling it forced integration isn't inaccurate. I didn't invent or fabricate what happened, I merely reported on it. From that you assumed I approve of a racists view point on how he will use his property. I don't, but that is beside the point of whether or not a racist has been forced into an interaction.
You constantly imply or state that my observation and discussing something somehow becomes my endorsement or rejection of the behavior I am observing. That's the tactic of a person with a weak argument.
The truth is, I think the racist is being a dick, but his thoughts which I disagree with, don't remove his right not to be forced into a human interaction on his own property which he'd prefer not to have.
I don't have the right to force a human interaction with a person, or make them serve me, especially if they remain on their own property. Nobody does, no white person, no black person, no gay person, no homophobic person, no non floor shitter person, no floor shitter person etc.
What's funny is sometimes you imply there is no force, then you try to justify it. Make up your mind will ya?
Maybe you should give it a rest. My foot is getting tired from kicking your feeble ass so hard and so often.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'd give them a little respect if they would just admit it. but they are far too cowardly for that.
cowardice and racism go hand in hand.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Sho
I'd be careful shaking hands with See4, he ran out of toilet paper again.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
name one person who was forced to open a public store rather than a private store.
what's funny is that you can't name a single person ever who was forced top open a public store rather than a private store.
your entire argument is predicated entirely on a premise which doesn't even exist.
you are a failure in so many ways.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
THCbreeder
Well-Known Member
I'm all for a proposition regarding welfare and other govt programs that give out checks . If a govt volunteers you a check then people should be volunteering time. Basically working for your check. Start a program with jobs for people getting checks .they could gain experience while looking for work etc . Various jobs they could do and volunteer for . Think about the billions of dollars you or someone could make making a program of such and putting people to work . If the govt volunteers you a check you should volunteer time imo . Got time to lean , got time to clean !!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
oldtimer54
Well-Known Member
The question was .
If we abolish the IRS how will the red states get their welfare?
Here's an idea collect all the Bullshit in this thread and sell it to an unnamed Vermiculture company for huge profits. Which won't cure the problems but it should help. Everyone's entitled to their opinion even if its different from yours !
If we abolish the IRS how will the red states get their welfare?
Here's an idea collect all the Bullshit in this thread and sell it to an unnamed Vermiculture company for huge profits. Which won't cure the problems but it should help. Everyone's entitled to their opinion even if its different from yours !
see4
Well-Known Member
No they aren't.
Nummingtons
Well-Known Member
I am so sick of the bigot tactic, not only on this website but in general. Whether or not you are a bigot matters not in the world of argumentation. Furthermore calling someone a bigot during an argument doesn't make you the victor. Matter of fact many years ago a man named Aristotle recognized that people needed to understand these sorts of arguments are mute and thus began developing the art we call logic. Since some of you seem to have little ability in the art of logic I have decided to help you along a bit.
First we will address one of the most prevalent logical fallacy's being practiced on this thread and that is abusive Ad Hominem, or in simple terms attack against the person. You see no matter how many times you call someone a dirty name if their argument is right then you have done nothing to defeat them. To take it one step further even if the arguer truly is a dirt bag if his argument can stand to reason then it is still a good argument. Here is an example for you and I'm even going to use the word bigot in it so you all should like it. If Hitler was standing in front of you arguing that water naturally runs down hill he would be right because his argument stands to reason even though he is a BIGOT. On the opposite end of the spectrum if Gandhi was standing in front of you arguing that horses are all purple guess what even though he is a real nice guy he is still wrong. So here it is if you disagree with Hitler because he is an ass hole or agree with Gandhi because he is a saint, in reality all you have done is distanced yourself from the truth.
Next I am going to tackle two of the tough ones, well they will be tough for some of you, and they are the red herring and the straw man. I know funny names but they are real I assure you. I will start with the red herring as it runs a close second in the contest for logical fallacy on this website. A red herring happens when one person attempts to refute the argument of another person but instead of refuting the argument simply changes the topic all together. For example lets say Dave is arguing that welfare should be abolished and George begins his refutation by stating " well whats next do you want to get rid of military spending too", what George has done here is change the topic which has done nothing to advance the topic of welfare. No truth can be found through this method of argumentation. Next and lastly for today we will tackle the straw man which is almost tied with red herring on this site for most commonly used fallacy. A straw man occurs when again instead of refuting an argument the arguer makes a new argument usually one with an easily refutable conclusion. If you are really good at this you will take the argument to a really horrid place so you can get the listener emotionally outraged, this way you can commit two fallacy's at the same time, a straw man and appeal to the people. But appeal to the people is for another day lets give an example of a straw man using our friends Dave and George again. Lets say Dave is arguing against the death penalty and George refutes him by saying " well Dave I guess if we live by your reasoning we just have to free all the criminals", you see Dave was not advocating freeing thousands of criminals he was arguing for abolishing the death penalty. I will say it once again this form of argumentation gets none of us closer to the truth, which should be the goal of any argument.
Look I know this was kinda a snarky way get my point across and I'm sure most of you are aware of what I have just stated, however it is really getting old guys. Seems like ever time I jump on here I find the same few people in every thread arguing badly about the same god damn topics. How about this why don't we all have a civilized discussion about some rad topics and maybe even advance ourselves closer to some TRUTH. All while getting real baked of course lol.
First we will address one of the most prevalent logical fallacy's being practiced on this thread and that is abusive Ad Hominem, or in simple terms attack against the person. You see no matter how many times you call someone a dirty name if their argument is right then you have done nothing to defeat them. To take it one step further even if the arguer truly is a dirt bag if his argument can stand to reason then it is still a good argument. Here is an example for you and I'm even going to use the word bigot in it so you all should like it. If Hitler was standing in front of you arguing that water naturally runs down hill he would be right because his argument stands to reason even though he is a BIGOT. On the opposite end of the spectrum if Gandhi was standing in front of you arguing that horses are all purple guess what even though he is a real nice guy he is still wrong. So here it is if you disagree with Hitler because he is an ass hole or agree with Gandhi because he is a saint, in reality all you have done is distanced yourself from the truth.
Next I am going to tackle two of the tough ones, well they will be tough for some of you, and they are the red herring and the straw man. I know funny names but they are real I assure you. I will start with the red herring as it runs a close second in the contest for logical fallacy on this website. A red herring happens when one person attempts to refute the argument of another person but instead of refuting the argument simply changes the topic all together. For example lets say Dave is arguing that welfare should be abolished and George begins his refutation by stating " well whats next do you want to get rid of military spending too", what George has done here is change the topic which has done nothing to advance the topic of welfare. No truth can be found through this method of argumentation. Next and lastly for today we will tackle the straw man which is almost tied with red herring on this site for most commonly used fallacy. A straw man occurs when again instead of refuting an argument the arguer makes a new argument usually one with an easily refutable conclusion. If you are really good at this you will take the argument to a really horrid place so you can get the listener emotionally outraged, this way you can commit two fallacy's at the same time, a straw man and appeal to the people. But appeal to the people is for another day lets give an example of a straw man using our friends Dave and George again. Lets say Dave is arguing against the death penalty and George refutes him by saying " well Dave I guess if we live by your reasoning we just have to free all the criminals", you see Dave was not advocating freeing thousands of criminals he was arguing for abolishing the death penalty. I will say it once again this form of argumentation gets none of us closer to the truth, which should be the goal of any argument.
Look I know this was kinda a snarky way get my point across and I'm sure most of you are aware of what I have just stated, however it is really getting old guys. Seems like ever time I jump on here I find the same few people in every thread arguing badly about the same god damn topics. How about this why don't we all have a civilized discussion about some rad topics and maybe even advance ourselves closer to some TRUTH. All while getting real baked of course lol.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
maybe stop saying bigoted things then, socko.
this is nto an issue with people who don't have a habit of making bigoted and racist remarks.