Right. When the morality of the left becomes absurd then so are the analogies.
Oh look, insults - what a surprise. The sad, absurd analogy was your own; it failed badly because of the parameters
you set.
Your side defends crime. No thanks.
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.
What is wrong with the if. At least I gave you a way out which you did not take. You continue to dismiss the severity of murder.
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.
Nowhere have I dismissed the severity of murder.
No tangent and is quite germane to our discussion. It shows where your side has headed in the last decade. And, yes, I will continue to bash the far left for the digression in morality.
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.
The thread is not about Trump and you know that I’m not a fan. I am comparing severity of crimes. You are flirting with the false equivalency fallacy.
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.
My argument clearly stated that she DID murder someone but not that she would murder anyone if elected. You are twisting my argument so yes it is a Strawman.
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.
Good for her. Hopefully she’ll remain sober.
Yes according to the law. Even the one driving the getaway car (if there was one) is equally as guilty.
Well then. Severity matched and then exceeded in numbers.
crux of my argument IS the severity of her crime BECAUSE she murdered someone.
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.
She should have served a lot longer than ten years for the taking of a life. The victim and their family are serving life without the possibility of parole.
Okay.