Three ICE detainees shot, 2 dead, at ICE facility in Dallas; suspected shooter committed suicide.

[Aldebaran]

An ad hominem attack logical fallacy is qualified as an attempt to avoid the valid substantive matter of an argument by attacking the Character of the person making the valid argument. It is therefore a BAD FORM OF CHARACTER to engage in an ad hominem attack.

If SOMEONE points out the BAD FORM of an ad hominem attacker, some people even dare to will double down on the BAD FORM by attempting to claim the one who is pointing out the BAD FORM of the ad hominem attacker is a hypocrite for attacking the BAD FORM CHARACTER of the ad hominem attacker, even though that SOMEONE didn't do so to avoid the substantive argument.

I like clarity, not obfuscation. Are you saying Biden said, "They're poisoning the blood of our country"...?

That was a long-winded and inaccurate way of accusing me of something.
Start over, and prove your accusation against me. Then we'll talk.

 

[childeye 2]

That was a long-winded and inaccurate way of accusing me of something.

I didn't accuse you of anything. In short, I'm saying that pointing out slander isn't slander.

Start over, and prove your accusation against me. Then we'll talk.

I don't have any accusation against you to prove. I just seek clarity and that's why I asked the question:

"I like clarity, not obfuscation. Are you saying Biden said, "They're poisoning the blood of our country"...?

 

[Aldebaran]

I didn't accuse you of anything. In short, I'm saying that pointing out slander isn't slander.

I don't have any accusation against you to prove. I just seek clarity and that's why I asked the question:

"I like clarity, not obfuscation. Are you saying Biden said, "They're poisoning the blood of our country"...?

You seem to be forgetting the posts after that.
Help the conversation by referring to the most recent posts you've made.

 

[childeye 2]

You seem to be forgetting the posts after that.
Help the conversation by referring to the most recent posts you've made.

I'm kind of busy tending to more serious matters. I'll try and get back to this later.

 

[childeye 2]

You seem to be forgetting the posts after that.
Help the conversation by referring to the most recent posts you've made.

Whatever I've posted that you want to talk about just quote it and state your problem with it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Whatever I've posted that you want to talk about just quote it and state your problem with it.

Very well.

An ad hominem attack logical fallacy is qualified as an attempt to avoid the valid substantive matter of an argument by attacking the Character of the person making the valid argument. It is therefore a BAD FORM OF CHARACTER to engage in an ad hominem attack.

If SOMEONE points out the BAD FORM of an ad hominem attacker, some people even dare to will double down on the BAD FORM by attempting to claim the one who is pointing out the BAD FORM of the ad hominem attacker is a hypocrite for attacking the BAD FORM CHARACTER of the ad hominem attacker, even though that SOMEONE didn't do so to avoid the substantive argument.

I like clarity, not obfuscation. Are you saying Biden said, "They're poisoning the blood of our country"...?

Has nothing to do with replying to what I said.

 

[childeye 2]

Has nothing to do with replying to what I said.

Aldebaran said:
You should remember that when Conservatives likened Biden's speeches and left-wing censorship tactics to things Hitler did and said, we were accused of "Godwin's Law". Your own comparison's of Trump to Hitler and no more valid.

I don't actually recall what you're talking about. But my remarks about the ad hominem attack logical fallacy was what came to mind when I read it. Sounded to me like it had to do with smearing others to avoid the substantive issues and that's where I felt you were going. So, I wanted to remark that pointing out slander is not slander.

While it makes sense that when people discuss some perceived form of demagoguery, like silencing dissent, it will inevitably remind people of Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini, because they're infamous: But Trump actually said, they're "poisoning the blood of our country". And He actually said, "enemy within" and he actually means it. So, any claim that my comparison is somehow a manifestation of Godwin's law is not even close to valid.

 

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran said:
You should remember that when Conservatives likened Biden's speeches and left-wing censorship tactics to things Hitler did and said, we were accused of "Godwin's Law". Your own comparison's of Trump to Hitler and no more valid.

I don't actually recall what you're talking about. But my remarks about the ad hominem attack logical fallacy was what came to mind when I read it. Sounded to me like it had to do with smearing others to avoid the substantive issues and that's where I felt you were going. So, I wanted to remark that pointing out slander is not slander.

While it makes sense that when people discuss some perceived form of demagoguery, like silencing dissent, it will inevitably remind people of Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini, because they're infamous: But Trump actually said, they're "poisoning the blood of our country". And He actually said, "enemy within" and he actually means it. So, any claim that my comparison is somehow a manifestation of Godwin's law is not even close to valid.

But really, so what? You keep repeating 6 words Trump said, and then try to make a Hitler comparison.
I remember a time not long ago when it was revealed that Baltimore had a severe rat problem that wasn't being addressed. It was so bad that they were becoming infamous for it. Whenever it was said that Baltimore was "rat infested", there were certain people around here who I won't name who claimed that it was racist to use the word "infested". Slander? Oh well, some people hear what they want to.

 

[childeye 2]

But really, so what? You keep repeating 6 words Trump said, and then try to make a Hitler comparison.

I don't have to try and make a comparison. Hitler said those exact sentiments.

I remember a time not long ago when it was revealed that Baltimore had a severe rat problem that wasn't being addressed. It was so bad that they were becoming infamous for it. Whenever it was said that Baltimore was "rat infested", there were certain people around here who I won't name who claimed that it was racist to use the word "infested". Slander? Oh well, some people hear what they want to.

I can't see how that's racist. Maybe those people thought rats was referencing people.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't have to try and make a comparison. Hitler said those exact sentiments.

You mean the sentiment that people who come here illegally, commit horrific crimes, and then get preferred treatment need to be dealt with? Sounds like Hitler didn't want to see his country go down the tubes either. But here in the USA where kids in school are taught that America is the great oppressor of the world and that we should pretty much be ashamed of ourselves for being American (and especially white), pretty much anything antithetical to that idea must seem to be "Hitler" in nature. Wanting to see our country seen as great again rather than a woke joke? What a concept!

I can't see how that's racist. Maybe those people thought rats was referencing people.

Hardly possible considering how the subject was the actual rat infestation. Anyway, I had decided to change my phrasing to "rat populated" so the offensive word wouldn't be used. And yes, the infestation still exists: How Is Baltimore Dealing with Its Lingering Rat Problem? | Pest Czar

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't have to try and make a comparison. Hitler said those exact sentiments.

I can't see how that's racist. Maybe those people thought rats was referencing people.

Trump said something indefensible, it’s not the first time. I wish he would run his mouth less but it is what it is

 

[childeye 2]

You mean the sentiment that people who come here illegally, commit horrific crimes, and then get preferred treatment need to be dealt with?

No, the sentiment that they're poisoning the blood of our country.

Sounds like Hitler didn't want to see his country go down the tubes either.

By killing Jews?

But here in the USA where kids in school are taught that America is the great oppressor of the world and that we should pretty much be ashamed of ourselves for being American (and especially white), pretty much anything antithetical to that idea must seem to be "Hitler" in nature.

Is this what's on your chest? My guess is that everyone is entertaining all the propaganda.

Wanting to see our country seen as great again rather than a woke joke? What a concept!

Woke or asleep, all we have to do to defeat the lies is stop believing slander.

 

[rjs330]

But the status quo has generally been to allow parents to decide what is best for their children rather than the government unless a child's welfare is at stake. <--- That's always been a conservative position. <-- The dictionary meaning of conservative.

Exactly, that's why issues define conservative liberal and not change vs status quo.

You're not articulating it correctly. You need to understand the terms 'decentralizing' and 'centralizing' as pertains to the delegation of power in degrees, so as to understand the difference between policy that would support democracy and policy that would support autocracy. If you did understand how to reason upon the Democracy/autocracy dichotomy you'd see why bias could never be involved in the equation.

You go far enough loo after and they don't support democracy but autocracy. So to make any other claim as it being a right position is biased against the right.

Objective language would draw a distinction between a change to the left or a change to the right of the status quo as in this dichotomy -> democracy/autocracy.

Except that doesn't work. The reason is those two words are tossed out all the time making claims of autocratic when its not. Again, position on issues actually determines right and left.

The whole system is broken. Asylum seekers were supposed to be detained until there cases were reviewed.

On that we agree. But it also doesn't mean asylum laws were broken. Things definitely need to be changed. But I suspect that generally speaking the right and left would probably disagree as to the changes.

It was drafted by a bipartisan group of senators.

Yes, but it wasnt fully supported. That means whomever helped with the bill didnt get the support of their people. So in the end it really wasn't bi partisan.

. A liberal would not support unsecure borders.

Some do.

 

[rjs330]

Well, maybe you don't see it in the eyes of the immigrants. Jesus said the weightier matters of the law are mercy and justice.

Too many are missing the justice part. Mercy isnt about allowing people to break the law without consequence. Its making sure the consequences are appropriate and giving people a chance. Thats why we send them back home instead of putting them in prison for tge rest of their lives.

 

[rjs330]

I don't actually believe what Trump says. I don't see a danger from "far left lunatics" happening, nor Hannibal Lectors and murderers sneaking into the country. I see people who don't agree with Trump being called far left lunatics, and I don't like slander.

Then you should do more research into the criminals that have been caught. We also have MS13 and the cartels in America as well as Tren de Agua here. Some very violent people. Human trafficking and drug traffickers.

I reason upon dichotomies, so I tend to note those who gather the sheep and those who scatter the sheep.

Me too, thats why I pointed out that you don't. The radical left is just as bad as the radical right when it comes to scattering the sheep. Often they are the wolves dressed as sheep.

All I said is Trump was expressing the same sentiments against others as Nazi's expressed against Jews,

Then we have an obligation to take him out by any means necessary. Because you know where Hitlers actions went correct? It started out with words and led to actions. In fact many on the left believe the actions have already started.