Clarity on this? "Say something nice about Trump or I'll BLOCK YOU!" = a Bulverism + could breach forum rules.

eclipsenow · 2025-09-29T03:22:15-0500

First - although this commentor never actually used the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or accused me of having TDS in those terms - it was implied. The commenter basically demanded that I say something nice about Trump to prove I could be objective otherwise I was too partisan and not worth engaging - they were boing to block everything I said forever.

Second - isn't politics more about the POLICIES? I assured this person that I had voted for people I did not LIKE as my leader, but thought their policies and their party's general direction was more important than the PERSON! That this commenter insisted I say something nice about the PERSON of Donald Trump indicates they were using this argument to accuse me of having TDS - which I thought was against forum rules.

Third: this demand is itself an irrational logical error that CS Lewis called a "Bulverism". It's a patronising attempt to explain WHY I am wrong - rather than show THAT my arguments against Trump's policies are wrong. From the Bulverism wiki:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism".

Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man."

"At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall."

That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

— C. S. Lewis, Bulverism

I've seen this person resort to this logical error many times - and would love to hear the forum's thoughts.

Hazelelponi · 2025-09-29T03:44:50-0500

I think if an individual feels someone is simply partisan and not worth engaging with if they can't say something positive about those they vehemently disagree with on some political matters it's within their right to block you.

I block a lot of people who I don't feel I can have a productive conversation with, often simply because their personality rubs me the wrong way in a single discussion.

It doesn't mean I can't get along with people on the other side of the aisle in real life, it just means I don't prefer discussion with the people I block.

When you don't know someone, and want to know if their heart is full of love or hate, asking if they see positives in someone being criticized I think is reasonably valid to see what kind of people they might be, and might help inform as to how productive a conversation might be.

If that's the way someone feels, it's just the way they feel. It's not like we are all going to mesh in the same way in discussing difficult topics.

Edit to add: it might simply be that we feel more comfortable talking to those who we see areas of at least potential agreement. For example @Bradskii - I don't agree with him about everything, and there might be more areas of disagreement than agreement, but I don't disagree with him about everything either, so I fell comfortable discussing with him even when we disagree.

The can you say something nice is likely just looking for that point of contact that makes someone feel comfortable. But I could be off base in my musing.

Servus · 2025-09-29T04:31:02-0500

eclipsenow said:
First - although this commentor never actually used the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or accused me of having TDS in those terms - it was implied. The commenter basically demanded that I say something nice about Trump to prove I could be objective otherwise I was too partisan and not worth engaging - they were boing to block everything I said forever.

Second - isn't politics more about the POLICIES? I assured this person that I had voted for people I did not LIKE as my leader, but thought their policies and their party's general direction was more important than the PERSON! That this commenter insisted I say something nice about the PERSON of Donald Trump indicates they were using this argument to accuse me of having TDS - which I thought was against forum rules.

Third: this demand is itself an irrational logical error that CS Lewis called a "Bulverism". It's a patronising attempt to explain WHY I am wrong - rather than show THAT my arguments against Trump's policies are wrong. From the Bulverism wiki:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism".

Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man."
"At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall."
That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
— C. S. Lewis, Bulverism

I've seen this person resort to this logical error many times - and would love to hear the forum's thoughts.

It's a matter of objectivity vs subjectivity. If someone displays too much negativity or positivity regarding Trump, they're likely to be more subjective than objective. And it’s unproductive to try reasoning with someone who's too subjective. Being asked to say something positive about Trump is a test to see if there's any objectivity involved in that person's reasoning. An objective person should be able to point out a positive and negative aspect in whomever, whether they're for or against that politician.

eclipsenow · 2025-09-29T05:20:02-0500

Hazelelponi said:
I think if an individual feels someone is simply partisan and not worth engaging with if they can't say something positive about those they vehemently disagree with on some political matters it's within their right to block you.

I block a lot of people who I don't feel I can have a productive conversation with, often simply because their personality rubs me the wrong way in a single discussion.

But that's honest of you. The difference is you are taking ownership of your own personality clash with this other person.

In my case, this other commenter is repeatedly using this logical error to avoid the pertinent issues - avoid the statistics and data - and sometimes it comes completely out of nowhere.

Hazelelponi said:
When you don't know someone, and want to know if their heart is full of love or hate, asking if they see positives in someone being criticized I think is reasonably valid to see what kind of people they might be, and might help inform as to how productive a conversation might be.

But demanding someone express something warm and fuzzy about possibly one of America's most reviled politicians ever is quite the demand! He is not a normal politician. Let's look at my reaction to someone more 'normal' - George W Bush!

I disagreed with Dubya on policy and could get irate about it. But here, I can admit he had a big heart for people. He at least tried to do the right thing (from his misguided political perspective). In his retirement has admitted that invading Iraq in GW2 was WRONG - and has donated millions to charity as he sells his paintings which he paints and sells specifically for this purpose!

Trump is another animal. Asking me to compliment this narcissist is like asking me to perform the bamboo nail torture on myself - and the commenter demanding it knows it. It does not make me irrational though. I think I link to peer-reviewed studies and data far more than this guy. This guy can't be bothered to do the work!

But Trump? He's another animal. I have a welfare background. I briefly studied psych - but am no psychologist - let alone psychiatrist. But I immensely respect these professional colleagues from my previous career.

When over 230 experts warned against Trump's NPD and America elected him anyway, it was like a body-blow to me. This is not a normal politician. He is someone with a criminal record, history of defrauding businesses and workers, sexually harassing women, is convicted of tax avoidance, and this entitlement to all the good things -and yet avoiding his normal civic duties - goes all the way back to having daddy rig a medical excuse to get out of Vietnam! He nearly incited a revolution on Jan 06 - and to this day his NPD prevents him admitting he lost. (As confirmed by 65 separate court cases! How much did THAT cost America - all based on his own lies!)

Yet he whines and carries on about the world being so very unfair to him, and threatens free speech, threatens comedians who dare to hurt his feelings, threatens whole networks - tries to sue Newspapers that dare to publish FACTS against him!

Why DOESN'T he release the Epstein files?

But this commenter wants me to say something warm and fuzzy about this guy - or I'm the irrational one?

Hazelelponi said:
If that's the way someone feels, it's just the way they feel.

Sure - that can be true - and I can live with that.

Yet it's not just me - but every second democrat he comes across.

And his feelings are his feelings - but it does not stop his accusation verging on accusations of Trump-Derangement-Syndrome - and is a big fat Bulverism to boot!

Maria Billingsley · 2025-09-29T06:17:05-0500

eclipsenow said:
First - although this commentor never actually used the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or accused me of having TDS in those terms - it was implied. The commenter basically demanded that I say something nice about Trump to prove I could be objective otherwise I was too partisan and not worth engaging - they were boing to block everything I said forever.

Second - isn't politics more about the POLICIES? I assured this person that I had voted for people I did not LIKE as my leader, but thought their policies and their party's general direction was more important than the PERSON! That this commenter insisted I say something nice about the PERSON of Donald Trump indicates they were using this argument to accuse me of having TDS - which I thought was against forum rules.

Third: this demand is itself an irrational logical error that CS Lewis called a "Bulverism". It's a patronising attempt to explain WHY I am wrong - rather than show THAT my arguments against Trump's policies are wrong. From the Bulverism wiki:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism".

Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man."
"At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall."
That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
— C. S. Lewis, Bulverism

I've seen this person resort to this logical error many times - and would love to hear the forum's thoughts.

Hmm, I never knew you could " block" someone on this forum unless it is just a personal action of ignoring posts. Anyhow, I suppose it is a good thing to avoid further conflict. It does no good to engage then enrage. Besides, it is impossible to reason with the unreasonable.
Blessings

eclipsenow · 2025-09-29T06:44:30-0500

Maria Billingsley said:
Hmm, I never knew you could " block" someone on this forum unless it is just a personal action of ignoring posts. Anyhow, I suppose it is a good thing to avoid further conflict. It does no good to engage then enrage. Besides, it is impossible to reason with the unreasonable.
Blessings

Sure! I have absolutely no objection to making common sense decisions on whom to block.

My objection is someone breaching the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" rule on this forum by just being careful never to utter those exact words - but basically using exactly the same charge.

Michie · 2025-09-29T08:21:44-0500

eclipsenow said:
Sure! I have absolutely no objection to making common sense decisions on whom to block.

My objection is someone breaching the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" rule on this forum by just being careful never to utter those exact words - but basically using exactly the same charge.

Why are you taking your issues to the open board? We are not supposed to do that. What a strange thing to do. Instead of trying to swing people to your side, you should talk to staff.

chevyontheriver · 2025-09-29T10:55:45-0500

eclipsenow said:
First - although this commentor never actually used the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or accused me of having TDS in those terms - it was implied. The commenter basically demanded that I say something nice about Trump to prove I could be objective otherwise I was too partisan and not worth engaging - they were boing to block everything I said forever.

Second - isn't politics more about the POLICIES? I assured this person that I had voted for people I did not LIKE as my leader, but thought their policies and their party's general direction was more important than the PERSON! That this commenter insisted I say something nice about the PERSON of Donald Trump indicates they were using this argument to accuse me of having TDS - which I thought was against forum rules.

Third: this demand is itself an irrational logical error that CS Lewis called a "Bulverism". It's a patronising attempt to explain WHY I am wrong - rather than show THAT my arguments against Trump's policies are wrong. From the Bulverism wiki:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism".

Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man."
"At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall."
That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
— C. S. Lewis, Bulverism

I've seen this person resort to this logical error many times - and would love to hear the forum's thoughts.

YOU appear to be the one playing politics here. If you think forum rules were violated report the violation using the proper channel rather than griping to all of us that you can't find one thing good to say about Trump.

Bradskii · 2025-09-29T16:15:58-0500

eclipsenow said:
I've seen this person resort to this logical error many times - and would love to hear the forum's thoughts.

Maybe he'll chip in. That would make for a delicate conversation (and yeah, I think that I know who you might be talking about). And I agree with you about what Trump is really good at...nice line.

Bradskii · 2025-09-29T17:01:52-0500

chevyontheriver said:
YOU appear to be the one playing politics here. If you think forum rules were violated report the violation using the proper channel rather than griping to all of us that you can't find one thing good to say about Trump.

To go a little deeper...

First up, I think it's an idiotic request. So Trump has clean fingernails? He's kind to stray dogs? He doesn't chew with his mouth open? 'Say something nice!' was obviously asked to try to separate the opinion of the man from the opinion of his politics. Which is often not possible. Because one of the main requirements of his position is to represent the United States. And he's doing a simply appalling job at that. Most recent case in point being his execrable UN speech. And quite often his actions aren't policies, they are true vendettas. Which can only reflect on the man himself.

But you can look at his policies in isolation. And you don't have to be an economic wunderkind to opine that his policies on tariffs for example are idiotic. But you don't come to that conclusion because Trump is, in one's humble opinion, an awful person. You come to that conclusion and in one's humble opinion, he's an awful person.

I often see the comment that 'Hey, we weren't voting for a priest' when his character is being discussed. Well, if you're looking for someone who is going to represent your country I wouldn't have thought it would have been too difficult to find someone that the whole country might have said 'Well, he's a decent sort of guy'. Are they that thin on the ground in your part of the world? The rest of the world was like 'Wait. What? Are you being serious?'

I'll tell you what I think. 'Say something nice' comes across as a tacit admission that there's actually not much nice to say about the man. But asking the question might be a way of saying 'I'm not backing his policies just because of the type of person he is (because he's an awful guy) but simply on his policies themselves'. You can't support his character, backing his policies is becoming a real tough gig so it's a cri de coeur: 'Please, there must be a plus here!'

I see a gradual realisation from a lot of people that there isn't. It's all bad.

Chesterton · 2025-09-29T17:33:10-0500

It's obvious from this thread that there is absolutely NO SUCH THING as Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's merely a difference of opinion about policies.

rambot · 2025-09-29T17:54:08-0500

I think it's an absurdly childish thing to demand of someone.

For the record, here is mine:

I usually like his tie.

I'm wondering the following, for those of you who LOVE him....why?
Sure you able to grudgingly say that sometimes "he can be abbrassive", but you [a communal "you"] seem to think that that means you have a fair and balanced look at Trump.

It just gets really quiet when we have conversations and threads about Trump's character on CF. I'd love to see Trump supporters be able to create a list of his negative qualities.

Because, seriously? What are we supposed to say?
He's a good father? Husband? That he's honest, trustworthy? That he's an excellent judge of character? Which Fruit of the Spirit should I associate with him?

All of the normal things I would say about people when I need to scrape the bottom of a barrel, I can't even get those to fit with him.

Is there something I missing?
Is there a Trump supporter who could maybe point out some attributes of his personality that I have simply missed? I'm willing to examine anything but be forewarned that just because you share it, I may not agree with you/it. But definitely, I'd love to consider.....

God has required me to love EVERYONE. I have simply not enough good in Trump and I struggle with it...I don't want to, but I do. So if he's so good, please help me see in what way.

Servus said:
It's a matter of objectivity vs subjectivity. If someone displays too much negativity or positivity regarding Trump, they're likely to be more subjective than objective. And it’s unproductive to try reasoning with someone who's too subjective. Being asked to say something positive about Trump is a test to see if there's any objectivity involved in that person's reasoning. An objective person should be able to point out a positive and negative aspect in whomever, whether they're for or against that politician.

I think objectivity and subjectivity has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with "liking or not liking" someone. It has to do with having an understanding of the facts of that person: How they behave around other people; with their loved ones; with their enemies.

I DO recall there were a couple pieces of legislation in Trump's first term I agreed with. And while some of his comments around COVID were pretty assinine, he took some steps there I thought were great too!

I am able to accept that.
Is that all you're talking about? I still don't think he is a good person at all and I disagree with almost everything he does but again....there's been a couple.

Richard T · 2025-09-29T20:16:12-0500

Reminds me of the old preacher who was talking to a woman who never could say anything bad about anyone. So the preacher asked her what she thought of the devil. She replied, well he is a hard worker and he never seems to give up.

perplexed · 2025-09-29T21:26:38-0500

I don't think it is that hard to come up with something good about Trump
Something along the lines of
Trump's hostile reaction to "defund the police" is appropriate and good leadership

linux.poet · 2025-09-29T22:19:18-0500

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for moderation review.

Friendly reminder here:

Disruptive Behavior, Campaigning, Staff Disciplinary Action

To maintain the peace and harmony on CF you must refrain from doing the following on the public forums:

Making posts that speak of any Staff action either with you or another member (including any bans, warnings, or editing or removal of posts).
Do not add comments to posts once the thread has been closed for review. A closed thread means there should not be any further comment. Commenting in closed threads can result in a ban.
Complaining about another members posts/threads, Christian Forums or its Staff.
Spite reports - e.g. reporting in retaliation, multiple reports on a member using opposing arguments but are not violations, or repeatedly reporting a member in harassment.
Attempting to undermine these rules or policies via campaigns, petitions, or protests is not allowed.

If you feel the need to discuss another member's behavior, or have a issue about CF, its Staff or Policies, please make a Ticket in Support and discuss it in private with our Admins and Advisors.

Clarity on this? "Say something nice about Trump or I'll BLOCK YOU!" = a Bulverism + could breach forum rules.

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

<><

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

act from love, not fear

MOD HAT ON​

This thread is closed for moderation review.​

Disruptive Behavior, Campaigning, Staff Disciplinary Action​

MOD HAT OFF​

Similar threads

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for moderation review.

Disruptive Behavior, Campaigning, Staff Disciplinary Action

MOD HAT OFF