|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works.
I take issue with this.
My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this.
So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism.
I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred.
|
|
|
On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists?
I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand.
|
On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred.
We assert it because its true. You just have a hard time with facts.
|
What's really sad is that what this election really is about is the future of social security, of tolerance in American society, of the future of millions of illegal immigrants, of global warming.
And we get taunts and conspiracy theories.
A democracy that can't have a debate based on anything else than name calling and crazy talk is not a democracy anymore.
|
On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists?
On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand.
If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all.
I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded.
I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all.
You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here.
It's a fact that mass rape is a huge problem in human trafficking for illegal immigration from mexico. This is the policy at issue. Crime rates among illegal immigrants are disproportionately higher. There is no racist in stating these facts. Illegal immigration is not good for this country.
|
|
|
On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here.
Crooked Hillary is insincere!!!
Muahahahahaha
|
for a fun game, run a search on this thread using the word "retarded"; the posters who pop up will not surprise you 
|
On June 11 2016 08:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. Crooked Hillary is insincere!!! Muahahahahaha
They're both politicians. I don't think I've ever said Trump was a saint.
|
On June 11 2016 08:38 farvacola wrote:for a fun game, run a search on this thread using the word "retarded"; the posters who pop up will not surprise you
Well now you pop up
|
On June 11 2016 08:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. Crooked Hillary is insincere!!! Muahahahahaha They're both politicians. I don't think I've ever said Trump was a saint.
I would hope not, you can't be a saint if you're racist! Ahooooooooooo!(cymbal crash)
|
On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred.
|
On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. .
And so we come to the end.
When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying".
Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument ><
|
Yeah, I know your argument. I can tell you that Trump's concern is because the Judge won't do what he wants and dismiss the case and Trump blames it on bias because the judge is Hispanic. He just assumes that because the Judge is of Mexican heritage, his rulings were biased.
Which is racism.
|
On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument ><
You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect.
No wonder you're so upset.
And for the record his statement about the families, while I find disturbing, isn't even racist. Just so we're clear.
Which is what this was actually about.
Good night.
|
On June 11 2016 08:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:14 Plansix wrote:On June 11 2016 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump: "You need to go after the terrorists' families."
Everyone: "Trump says that we should target relatives of terrorists, even if they're innocent."
GGTemplar: "That's an unfair representation of what he's saying."
Huh?
Trump: "Even though there's no evidence to suggest this connection, the judge is biased against me and can't do his job because he's of Mexican heritage. Also, a Muslim judge probably couldn't be impartial either."
Everyone: "Trump is making a bigoted/ racist generalization because he's demonstrating prejudice towards a group of people."
GGTemplar: "Nah bro. Where's the evidence?"
Am I missing something here? It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance than women based solely on the fact that they are a man? I predict you saying no, because there is a context beyond that that makes it obvious it isn't sexist. This is the best analogy of why the judge curiel case is not an example of racism. But it is text book racism. Have you considered that you don't understand racism? You ignored my analogy. Is it not textbook sexism then to charge women less than men for car insurance? This is textbook sexism by your same argument. I'm asking your stance on this to see if it is consistent with your analysis of the Judge Curiel case so I know if you are motivated by rationality or emotions. One of those is backed up by math and data, which is how they are able to raise the prices for men. The other is based on nothing but the belief that someone with Mexican heritage can't do their job. One is racist. The other is not sexist. You don't know what racism is or how it works. I take issue with this. My argument is that in the judge curiel case, Trump's concerns about unfair court hearing are substantiated and rooted in something based in anecdotal facts. However, you and others have presumed that he is a racist because these substantiations were, as Trump said, rooted in the fact that the judge was of a certain race. You continued to assert racism though because of this. So we come to my analogy of car insurance. The view that men should be charged more is substantiated by evidence that justifies the price difference. However, the argument would be that it is still sexist because these substantiations were, as you can't deny, rooted in the fact that one individual is a woman or one a man. Yet you refuse to acknowledge, by the same logic, that it would result in sexism. I personally don't find either of these cases sexist or racist, they are rooted in fact not racial hatred.
There are actually many people who are agree generally, you're not the only person who doesn't see the "facts."
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 11 2016 08:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On June 11 2016 08:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? On June 11 2016 08:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 11 2016 08:29 zlefin wrote:
Templar -> what do you think trump meant when he said we should kill the families of terrorists? I think we should move on. I can't see a better analogy on the last pages than trying to discuss with someone who will use all the rhetorical lexicon to prove that 2+2=5. Killing terrorists is not foreign policy, saying that mexicans are rapists is not racism, and I'm going to prove that by answering the most convoluted arguments at hand. If I'm being completely honest here, I believe he was being a sleazy politician using rhetoric to rally the radical wing of his party to vote for him. It was on Fox News after all. I don't think he's going to intervene into military affairs and order generals to go about targeting the families of terrorists. I think that is retarded. I think he was wrong to say it. I also think it's just as wrong and sleazy to summarize his foreign policy as 'he wants to torture people and blow up families' and act like you are being fair to the opposition at all. You are taking the worst and representing it as the whole. This is factually what has been done here. . And so we come to the end. When your finally driven into a corner where you can't see any way to bullshit yourself out of explaining his statements you go with "I hope he was lying". Goodnight, see you tomorrow evening for another rehash of this same argument >< You seem to take the position that I've been arguing that Trump is perfect. No wonder you're so upset.
It's not about him not being a saint, it's about you arguing than when he says something that is bothering (for example because it's blatantly racist), it doesn't matter because he was lying. That's the most crazy reasoning I've heard in a long time.
World must be an interesting place with such logic.
|
On June 11 2016 08:38 farvacola wrote:for a fun game, run a search on this thread using the word "retarded"; the posters who pop up will not surprise you
I bet I'm number 1.
|
What? We're able to search a thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
