Maine elects woman convicted of killing Canadian tourist to city council: ‘So broken’

[Hentenza]

Oh look, insults - what a surprise.

The sad, absurd analogy was your own; it failed badly because of the parameters you set.

Nah. Worked just fine but some are insulted by the logical ending of defending a murderer.

Not only is this gratuitous insult wrong, it is extremely hypocritical. No one on "my side" defended Walker's murdering someone, while Trump is being defended as his crimes are not deemed as serious.

The problem your with your "if" is that it is false - when the premise is false, the argument as a whole fails.

If it were so, it might be; and if it was so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.[/i]​

Nowhere have I dismissed the severity of murder.

It is an irrelevant tangential opinion and an excuse to bash people you disagree with. When you resort to reflexively bashing the other side, you have clearly lost the argument. Try to stick to the matter at hand.

All my posts are still there for the checking. Everyone can see that you mischaracterized what I wrote.

Part of this thread is about Trump. No, I don't know that you are not a fan, but I'll take your word for it (so far, you have not conceded that Trump's felonies ought to be an impediment his holding the office, you've only defended his holding it). If you agreed somewhere in this thread that he is unfit for office, point out where, if you would be so kind, as I have missed that.

You're comparing what you said could not be compared. I didn't bring up the equivalency, but you have been disputing it for several pages now. It's a bit much of a muchness that you are suddenly crying foul after failing to prove your point. Yes, you are comparing the relative severity without consideration that one has not committed any further crimes while the other one has never ceased when considering their relative fitness for their elected office.

I haven't twisted your argument - you have failed to grasp mine. Your argument is that her decades-old murder conviction, despite her punishment and rehabilitation, makes her unfit for a position on city council ever, while another person's on-going corruption has no bearing on his fitness.

Well then. Severity matched and then exceeded in numbers.

You stated that [your] "argument never included her murdering someone" when that is the crux of your argument. Had she never killed anyone, then the severity of the crime that she would not have committed could not be a factor. In other words, the severity of the crime of murder would be moot if there had been no murder committed. If there were no murder, then no argument on the severity of the non-murder.

Okay.

This is not worth answering as you continue to twist my argument. Have a nice day.

 

[DaisyDay]

Post #94

Nah. Worked just fine but some are insulted by the logical ending of defending a murderer.

Your analogy was a dismal failure that illustrated my point while ruining yours.

I have not defended a murderer for murdering but you have condemned a person who paid for her crime and turned her life around. You have deemed her unfit for an office which has nothing to do with murder while condoning a man holding office whose convictions (not to mention the other indictments/arrests) do have quite a bit to do with the office he holds.

Your disparaging my morality is based on your misrepresenting my stance on murder and with conflating me with every other leftie you disagree with. You've shown no grasp of logic in your bad arguments and you don't seem to be able to follow mine (unless you are misrepresenting them for your own purposes, but I'll assume you're more moral than that unless you tell me differently).

This is not worth answering as you continue to twist my argument. Have a nice day.

You haven't demonstrated any twisting, so your claim is mere assertion. Good day to you.

 

[Hentenza]

Post #94

“Right. When the morality of the left becomes absurd then so are the analogies. Your side defends crime. No thanks.“

This is not an insult but a fact. Progressives are the ones fighting for bond reform which releases criminals, sometimes multiple violators and violent criminals, on no cash bonds regardless of their danger to the public. Normalizing crime is spitting in the faces of the victims.

Your analogy was a dismal failure that proved my point while ruining yours.

I have not defended a murderer for murdering but you have condemned a person who paid for her crime and turned her life around. You have deemed her unfit for an office which has nothing to do with murder while condoning a man holding office which does have quite a bit to do with the office he holds.

Your disparaging my morality is based on your misrepresenting my stance on murder and with conflating me with every other leftie you disagree with. You shown no grasp of logic in your bad arguments and you don't seem to be able to follow mine (unless you are misrepresenting them for your own purposes, but I'll assume you're more moral than that unless you tell me differently).


You haven't demonstrated any twisting, so your claim is mere assertion. Good day to you.

Again, not worth replying to.

 

[DaisyDay]

“Right. When the morality of the left becomes absurd then so are the analogies. Your side defends crime. No thanks.“

Your analogy, hiring a pedophile to work in a daycare *_* , entirely your choice of words, illustrated my point, not yours as to which one was peculiarly unsuitable for office taking into consideration the crime and the office.

This is not an insult but a fact.

No, not a fact - just your uninformed opinion.

Progressives are the ones fighting for bond reform which releases criminals, sometimes multiple violators and violent criminals, on no cash bonds regardless of their danger to the public.

Again, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting yet another issue which was people languishing days, months or even years awaiting trial on minor charges simply because they could not afford bail. And here you go, you dashing off on yet another tangent to show your immense disdain for the left.

Is it possible to stick to the topic or do we need to list all our grievances with "your side"? Can't we stick to our actual argument instead of bringing up irrelevant issues?

Normalizing crime is spitting in the faces of the victims.

Then stop doing that!

Again, not worth replying to.

And yet, you keep doing it.

The circles are getting dizzying, so once again, good day.

 

[Hentenza]

Your analogy, hiring a pedophile to work in a daycare *_* , entirely your choice of words, illustrated my point, not yours as to which one was peculiarly unsuitable for office taking into consideration the crime and the office.


No, not a fact - just your uninformed opinion.

Again, you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting yet another issue which was people languishing days, months or even years awaiting trial on minor charges simply because they could not afford bail. And here you go, you dashing off on yet another tangent to show your immense disdain for the left.

Is it possible to stick to the topic or do we need to list all our grievances with "your side"? Can't we stick to our actual argument instead of bringing up irrelevant issues?

Then stop doing that!

And yet, you keep doing it.

The circles are getting dizzying, so once again, good day.

Your strawman continues. Bye

 

[DaisyDay]

Your strawman continues. Bye

Well, still sniping, I see.