Respectful Politics Thread (Let's Just See)

[Censored]

When I ask a question about a fallacy in a right-wing argument on here:

 

[LittleJerry92]

@Censored you know why we, quote on quote, "don't give you answers"? Cause then you'll either A) put words in our mouths, B) make up alternative facts to dodge our responses, C) call us "racist" or "sexist" whatever comes in mind, or D) play the victim

And I'm sure any one of these you'll do in response to this, so excuse me while I sit back and wait while I hit up my vaporizer.

 

[Censored]

@Censored you know why we, quote on quote, "don't give you answers"? Cause then you'll either A) put words in our mouths, B) make up alternative facts to dodge our responses, C) call us "racist" or "sexist" whatever comes in mind, or D) play the victim

And I'm sure any one of these you'll do in response to this, so excuse me while I sit back and wait while I hit up my vaporizer.

Or E) You have no answer or F) You’re ashamed of your answer.

 

[LittleJerry92]

Whatever, man. Think what you want.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[MWoO]

What people really don’t like is that I take an argument and bring it to its logical conclusion.

No, what people don't like is HOW you do it. You reduce a nuanced argument down to a basic one, usually avoiding the actual point of the argument, so that you can mis-frame the issue and more easily provide a counter. When a person goes more into depth with what they say to make it harder for you to do that, you ignore them because "you didn't ask for a book". You aren't just bringing arguments to their logical conclusion, you attack people, call them names, and put words in their mouth. You refuse to ever admit fault in anything...ever.

If one believes a business owner has a right to discriminate against gays, then I ask if they can do the same with African Americans. Again, double talk, circular logic and just about anything but a direct answer.

You got a direct answer a couple times already, you just refuse to acknowledge it because then you can't claim you never got one. But what the heck, one more go.

Direct Answer: A business owner does NOT have the right to refuse service to any group. However, they have the right to refuse to provide a specific service if they do not wish to. They can not decide WHO they will serve, but they can decide WHAT they will serve.

Counter example: Is an African American owner bakery required to make a cake for a KKK meeting and decorate it with racial slurs? Is a Jewish owned bakery required to make a cake for Good Friday that depicts Jesus' crucifixion complete with the phrase "Our Lord and Savior"? Should a Christian bakery be forced to make an erotic cake, complete with sex acts depicted on it?

My argument is purely legal. There should be no law that requires you provide a service you do not wish to provide, but if you are providing a service you can not choose to not provide that service to an entire group.

One can be morally opposed to an act and still not think it should be illegal. I can exercise my freedom to not patronize a business that chooses to exercise their freedom not to provide certain services.

So, you’re saying a business could legally refuse service based on race as well?

No. Please see above. But this right here is what is wrong with how you argue as explained in this video:

That’s the problem. People like you think it’s only about sex.

Are you saying sexual orientation is not about sex? I'm pretty sure it's about sex. Who you wish to have it with or not have it with. How else would you define sexual orientation?

 

[MuppetsRule]

Wow, missed the last couple of pages. Lots to catch up on. MWoO and D'Snowth pretty much owned Censored today.

 

[MuppetsRule]

But yeah, here's basically a summary of what the entire thread's been reduced to:

SOMEBODY: (Posts something to make a point)
CENSORED: So in other words, you're a bigot, and I'm not, so you're wrong and I'm right.

SOMEBODY: (Posts something to make a point)
CENSORED: So in other words, you're a racist and will bring back segregation, so you're wrong and I'm right.

SOMEBODY: (Posts something to make a point)
CENSORED: So in other words, you support the genocide of innocent people who you think don't deserve to live, so you're wrong and I'm right.

SOMEBODY: (Posts something about children)
CENSORED: LEAVE THE CHILDREN ALONE!!! I'M AN EXPERT ON CHILDREN BECAUSE I'M A CHILD PSYCHIATRIST, SO YOU'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT!!!

Agree with everything here except the last line. Did you mean to say "I"M AN EXPERT ON CHILDREN BECAUSE I SEE A CHILD PSYCHIATRIST." ? It would be more accurate.

 

[MuppetsRule]

You reduce a nuanced argument down to a basic one, usually avoiding the actual point of the argument, so that you can mis-frame the issue and more easily provide a counter. When a person goes more into depth with what they say to make it harder for you to do that, you ignore them because "you didn't ask for a book". You aren't just bringing arguments to their logical conclusion, you attack people, call them names, and put words in their mouth. You refuse to ever admit fault in anything...ever.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, sums up his posting history.

 

[LittleJerry92]

I think this thread has alot of salt going on right now.

 

[LittleJerry92]

Well, in the mean time, let's all enjoy a satirical political video I made!