|
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 18 2016 09:09 SolaR- wrote:My girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend(who I despise) posted this blog in support of personally attacking people in arguments. The main premise is that personal attacks can be used effectively against opposing opinions or viewpoints by exploiting how inept the person voicing that opinion really is. The blog says that we should stifle people with oppressive(or what that person deems as oppressive) opinions or ideas with these personal attacks. It goes on to say that in reaction to the personal attacks, people take the moral high ground saying that they will not resort to your level. The blog claims that this is just posturing, and the person being attacked has no real argument but to take the moral high ground on your personal attacks. Quite frankly, I find this blog to be really ridiculous. I was just curious to see what you guys think. This blog cites Neil Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have read. I think the author of this blog is misrepresenting the book, and unfairly attacking it to support his own agenda. I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect. samkriss.wordpress.com
No one is in this thread to have an honest discussion, much less to convince others. The rampant "Hillary shillary" and "Trump=Hitler" kinda gives it away.
|
On June 18 2016 11:08 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 09:09 SolaR- wrote:My girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend(who I despise) posted this blog in support of personally attacking people in arguments. The main premise is that personal attacks can be used effectively against opposing opinions or viewpoints by exploiting how inept the person voicing that opinion really is. The blog says that we should stifle people with oppressive(or what that person deems as oppressive) opinions or ideas with these personal attacks. It goes on to say that in reaction to the personal attacks, people take the moral high ground saying that they will not resort to your level. The blog claims that this is just posturing, and the person being attacked has no real argument but to take the moral high ground on your personal attacks. Quite frankly, I find this blog to be really ridiculous. I was just curious to see what you guys think. This blog cites Neil Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have read. I think the author of this blog is misrepresenting the book, and unfairly attacking it to support his own agenda. I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect. samkriss.wordpress.com No one is in this thread to have an honest discussion, much less to convince others. The rampant "Hillary shillary" and "Trump=Hitler" kinda gives it away.
Although this thread contains a lot of that rhetoric from some posters, there are some here that do provide convincing and intelligible arguments. Even though I disagree with them they make me question my own views, and broaden my perspective. Which should be the end goal of any intelligent discussion or debate.
|
Any even the more rhetoric arguments between people of either side can be informative and educating to people from other countries trying to understand what is happening with their friendly neighborhood superpower.
|
On June 18 2016 11:08 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 09:09 SolaR- wrote:My girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend(who I despise) posted this blog in support of personally attacking people in arguments. The main premise is that personal attacks can be used effectively against opposing opinions or viewpoints by exploiting how inept the person voicing that opinion really is. The blog says that we should stifle people with oppressive(or what that person deems as oppressive) opinions or ideas with these personal attacks. It goes on to say that in reaction to the personal attacks, people take the moral high ground saying that they will not resort to your level. The blog claims that this is just posturing, and the person being attacked has no real argument but to take the moral high ground on your personal attacks. Quite frankly, I find this blog to be really ridiculous. I was just curious to see what you guys think. This blog cites Neil Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have read. I think the author of this blog is misrepresenting the book, and unfairly attacking it to support his own agenda. I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect. samkriss.wordpress.com No one is in this thread to have an honest discussion, much less to convince others. The rampant "Hillary shillary" and "Trump=Hitler" kinda gives it away.
you are factually wrong; it's just that the people here for honest discussion often have lower posting rates, being annoyed at the other stuff. But there are a fair number of us around; and reasonable people tend to be less visible.
|
As an American who attempts to talk politics in his daily life a bit too much, I think it bears worth mentioning that most discussions on here are far more honest than those that take place among people of similar distance.
|
|
|
Sigh, videos like this make me believe there is no hope for humanity.
Also, i must add this is the exact reason why my girlfriend(who is a trump supporter) will not go to a trump rally.
Not only because of possible racist white people, but more specifically other black people harassing her and claiming that she is a betrayer of her own race and other non sense.
|
On June 18 2016 09:46 farvacola wrote:While I disagree with pretty much everything you say, Solar, I will agree that that blog is pretty awful 
because he has three anti-slavoj posts?
|
On June 18 2016 11:11 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 11:08 Ghostcom wrote:On June 18 2016 09:09 SolaR- wrote:My girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend(who I despise) posted this blog in support of personally attacking people in arguments. The main premise is that personal attacks can be used effectively against opposing opinions or viewpoints by exploiting how inept the person voicing that opinion really is. The blog says that we should stifle people with oppressive(or what that person deems as oppressive) opinions or ideas with these personal attacks. It goes on to say that in reaction to the personal attacks, people take the moral high ground saying that they will not resort to your level. The blog claims that this is just posturing, and the person being attacked has no real argument but to take the moral high ground on your personal attacks. Quite frankly, I find this blog to be really ridiculous. I was just curious to see what you guys think. This blog cites Neil Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have read. I think the author of this blog is misrepresenting the book, and unfairly attacking it to support his own agenda. I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect. samkriss.wordpress.com No one is in this thread to have an honest discussion, much less to convince others. The rampant "Hillary shillary" and "Trump=Hitler" kinda gives it away. Although this thread contains a lot of that rhetoric from some posters, there are some here that do provide convincing and intelligible arguments. Even though I disagree with them they make me question my own views, and broaden my perspective. Which should be the end goal of any intelligent discussion or debate.
im glad you like my posts
|
On June 18 2016 13:05 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 09:46 farvacola wrote:While I disagree with pretty much everything you say, Solar, I will agree that that blog is pretty awful because he has three anti-slavoj posts?
careful, this is your ideology speaking sniff
|
Giving Brazil a run for its money:
|
Who would expect a Donald Trump Republican convention to be conventional, right?
Modern conventions have been staid affairs — except for the sometimes rogue empty chair. But Trump is considering ways to upend all that, campaign sources confirm to NPR.
Trump campaign advisers have said previously that, in a departure from custom, Trump could make an address to the delegates each night of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland next month. (Typically, party leaders give major speeches each evening leading up to the big moment. Prime convention speaking slots are often given to up-and-comers in the party as a way to highlight potential future leaders. These are usually weeklong celebrations culminating with an acceptance speech by the newly crowned nominee.)
Under consideration: Trump speaking to the convention via satellite from off-site locations in battleground states. Under one proposal, each night of the convention would open with a short film focused on a "problem" facing the nation — failing schools, opioid addiction, border security or government waste. People featured in the film would be introduced, followed by a 45-minute speech from Trump focused on a "solution" to the problem being presented.
At a rally in Dallas this week, Trump said he is considering having what he described as a "winner's night," highlighting celebrity endorsers like controversial and hot-tempered former college basketball coach Bobby Knight; former pro football player Herschel Walker; Dana White of the UFC mixed martial arts company; boxing promoter Don King; former college basketball coach Digger Phelps; and others.
"We're thinking about doing something that's different," Trump said, "rather than listening to politicians talk — 'Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much,' and everyone's falling asleep ..."
It worked in Indiana, Trump contended.
Source
|
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route?
|
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has taken more money from employees of America's 15 biggest pharmaceuticals companies than all of the Republicans who attempted a run for the White House this year combined, according to campaign finance disclosures.
The donations, which were nearly double those accepted by Democratic rival Bernie Sanders, came even as the former senator and secretary of state vowed to curb price gouging in the industry if elected.
Clinton's campaign took nearly $240,000 from employees of the industry between its launch and the end of April, compared with just under $168,000 for all of the Republicans together, including around $1,700 for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to the filings.
The money, a drop in the bucket of Clinton's nearly $190 million in overall individual contributions, has tended to come from people in top jobs: 54 percent of the donors list their position as executive, director, manager or lawyer. Donors and company officials contacted by Reuters declined to comment on the contributions.
Source
|
On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route?
A person that has been working with the DNC for decades worked with the DNC in 2015 and you think it's a scandal? Oh right, "colluding" not "working" with the DNC.
It's no secret that the DNC prefers Clinton to an independent that has been trying to use their party to push his message while having never contributed to the party before and is now throwing a temper tantrum after he lost.
|
On June 18 2016 15:26 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? A person that has been working with the DNC for decades worked with the DNC in 2015 and you think it's a scandal? Oh right, "colluding" not "working" with the DNC. It's no secret that the DNC prefers Clinton to an independent that has been trying to use their party to push his message while having never contributed to the party before and is now throwing a temper tantrum after he lost.
Not prefer, they had already decided and were out lying saying they were impartial. They were also working reporters and donors. Plenty of people here tried to defend them as if they hadn't already anointed Hillary. Turns out it's not true, hence why the DNC, Hillary, and the corporate media are all silent on it.
But I'll count that as 1 for dismissal.
|
On June 18 2016 09:09 SolaR- wrote:My girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend(who I despise) posted this blog in support of personally attacking people in arguments. The main premise is that personal attacks can be used effectively against opposing opinions or viewpoints by exploiting how inept the person voicing that opinion really is. The blog says that we should stifle people with oppressive(or what that person deems as oppressive) opinions or ideas with these personal attacks. It goes on to say that in reaction to the personal attacks, people take the moral high ground saying that they will not resort to your level. The blog claims that this is just posturing, and the person being attacked has no real argument but to take the moral high ground on your personal attacks. Quite frankly, I find this blog to be really ridiculous. I was just curious to see what you guys think. This blog cites Neil Postman's, Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book that I have read. I think the author of this blog is misrepresenting the book, and unfairly attacking it to support his own agenda. I think it is important for two opposing views to respect each other, and If you want to convince a person of anything you must first gain their respect. samkriss.wordpress.com
while this blog certainly has it weaknesses, it is miles ahead of everything you and most others have posted in this thread.
|
I don't know if it has been linked, but this shit is gross, true or not :
A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.” In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death. In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government. The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012. The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests. ![[image loading]](http://i0.wp.com/newobserveronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/C05794498-1.jpg?resize=730%2C537)
http://whatsupic.com/news-politics-usa/1465992351.html
|
On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route?
Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then?
|
On June 18 2016 17:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2016 15:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
So the DNC and Hillary were colluding as far back as May 2015 and not a peep. I know HRC hasn't given guidance on this yet, but are her supporters thinking dismissal or denial is the better route? Sermokala already addressed this, so I'm not sure why you're going for the copy/paste. The DNC assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee and started planning their strategy to beat the GOP accordingly. It turns out they were right. Did you expect them to sit on their thumbs until the convention and only start planning what to do for the general election then?
That's not what they (or the people who defended them) said they were doing, but I suppose that doesn't bother anyone if they're already supporting Hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
