ThreePointTakedown

The question was your attempt at the 'when did you stop hitting your spouse?' It wasn't a very well veiled attempt either. Sorry that you may have been convinced by something so quaint. People that understand dishonest tactics can sniff that one out.

Where are the posts for all the times the US government has gone into a central or south American, African, Asian, or European country to, covertly, destabilize it in order to over throw a leader that would merely charge companies more for their natural resources and allowing dictators to take over and kill swaths of their own people? Causing the many of the negative economic situations they find themselves in now and having populations that would rather suffer a long journey to the country that put them in the position in the first place. See how that works? Your tactics are carp. Always have been. Always will be. They convinced you of a thing, once. Doesn't mean its actually the case. Just means YOU were convinced. I will continue to ask questions about bad ideas. Best you can do is change your mind, your tactics, or stop responding.

You haven't established that that happens. Trying to insinuate the answer in the question is dishonest. Am I surprised? Nope. Try again.

Here was a chance to be somewhat cordial and help someone learn a thing they didn't know. Instead you continued being... well... you and showing no respect to someone that simply disagrees wit you about someone. You're letting your emotions control your actions a bit too much. You shouldn't do that. Makes you susceptible to dishonest tactics.

If you think appeals to emotion will change someone's mind on an issue. How do you suggest anyone hold an idea about any issue, considering there will likely be suffering on either side?

What did they say?

Agree to all points. We have roughly 5% of the world's population these two countries close to 25%. We're all going to have to cooperate to address the issue. They need to address their 'issues' with the inconsistent application of human rights. We are going to have to understand that they hold a bigger stick in this game and we might need to take a step back to play the long game for the greater good. Compromise is the name of the game. We all lose a little now to win in the end or we all lose eventually. There's a snake flag that reminds me of this situation.

They really don't see it do they? The point was that they don't equate. But you are defending an argument that does the same thing but for a different subject. Go back and read to see the similarities in each argument. If you need, I'll do it for you. Just let me know.

So you're right or have a better chance of being right because the information we get is not reliable? You heard it, right? You're correct because there is no way to be correct. Talk about ramblings. And yes, I am on the side of evidence and things that can be interpreted with as little subjectivity as possible. Can we be wrong? Yes. But we work to be better. Not just cast it off because it doesn't claim truth from the start. One side is anti science, anti education, and pro religion. All things that rely on a voting block with little understanding or reasoning skills. The same people that don't have control of their emotions and tend to get riled up when questioned even a little bit. Reminds me of some people here.

So she gets a pass? That's convenient. Why is it one instance does not paint the whole group in a negative light? Because you arbitrarily excuse her, having no information of her affiliation? How is that, in any way, honest or ethical?

Rent free is the way to be.

Here's where your emotions betray you. People who do not get their opinions questioned regularly tend to react negatively. As if they are being attacked. (see above for example). Calling into question the one thing you've hinged your argument on, common sense(the idea that we all have shared experience and knowledge that allows us all to have common truth). Sorry but we don't all have the cognitive ability or experience to reason things out the same way. We just don't. In calling out your logical fallacies has not stopped you from continuing to use them or lashing out when reminded. Sorry I do not play along so you can feel warm and cozy in your argument. Lets be clear, there is chance albeit a small one that you are correct in your points. I don't believe you are but maybe I'm wrong. I'm pointing out that the way you are getting to your conclusions is faulty. That you may be correct is circumstantial at best and you should be working to hone your method. Lets bring it back to wrestling for a second. That a technique works in one situation of one match does not mean it will work in that or any other situation forever. Best to try it again in that situation to test its efficacy. Then in other situations. If it works, great. If not, uh oh! Gonna need to try something else. What I see is someone that has used the same form of a bad argument and your opponents have either let you win because they agree with you already and don't care to rock the boat or they aren't committed enough to point it out because it would probably lead to whining and crying and name calling and whackadoo remarks. All those indicate is your inability to cope with the tiniest bit of friction. Asking you to clarify your points or statements or provide better evidence is not something you are use to in your life, I guess. Not instantly agreeing with you makes you feel attacked. The 4 or 5 other, like minded posters don't hesitate to pile on if when they can. In hopes of stymying an agitator in their midst. But you can't. Every time you post something ridiculous. I will simply ask you for more or better evidence to prove your point, if it is not to my satisfaction. If that hurts deep in your feels, sorry not sorry. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were the parties of the day. Including the Whigs. Which party that still survives today was included in the discussion over that clause? Neither party is 'bringing' in undocumented migrants. If you believe that I would be very interested to see you evidence for undocumented people being brought in by a government entity for the purpose that you claim. You haven't proven either case so this question makes no sense. I have heard that bring document foreign labor into certain fields is a benefit to that field, yes. Which President Johnson? One was a slave owner the other signed the Civil Rights Act. Would be interested to see you justify why we should believe anything that one of those should have to say about 3/5th or undocumented immigrants. Prove that welfare holds people/families back? Remember, common sense is no longer a useable tactic. Try data and evidence. Resist the urge to make a vague point in the form of a question. Because I have not made a claim that needs to be proven. Its all on you. You have offered no answers with your questions. Just that you don't have answers to these questions. I understand your anger at the mountain you must climb to prove any of your points. I don't envy you. But you still have a long way to go. Best of luck.

Please explain the two tiered justice system as you see it?

Did you not understand the question? A 'steel man' is a restating of someone else's point but in the strongest possible way. Care to take another swing?

'Your position is not based on any fact, law or common sense. You deny there is common sense so you are against facts and the law. I rebut you on this, but with no hope that you will read this or actually admit your error. You will just keep on posting your erroneous emotional diatribes here that have nothing to do with fact and law (or common sense for that matter). To continually do so is proof of your empty rhetoric.' My position, which I will state again, is that every example of documented or undocumented immigrants behaving badly is not representative of the whole. I trust you know that. What % of the whole? We don't know, but typically, its lower. From the Cato Institute: The results are similar to our other work on illegal immigration and crime in Texas. In 2018, the illegal immigrant criminal conviction rate was 782 per 100,000 illegal immigrants, 535 per 100,000 legal immigrants, and 1,422 per 100,000 native‐born Americans. (See that?) I do deny common sense, but the rest of your sentence show the lack of any sense whatsoever. I would love to see you connect those terms with a coherent sentence or thought. You haven't pointed out an error just a misunderstanding of reason. If you can show that because I deny that common sense is an actual thing that we all share, that I am against facts and the law, I would happily admit that I was wrong? I await your response to this gambit. I'll bet you won't even try. And make up some excuse, 'You won't admit it so why would I put in the effort. I have a connection but she goes to another school and you don't know her, but the connection totally exists!' I'm sorry you've never experienced the challenging of your ideas to this extent. It must be jarring. Its a shame. You should embrace the fact that someone is trying to help you become stronger in your thinking rather than making excuses why you don't need to work to prove anything. These are typical tactics of a lazy thinker. Do some research of arguing and discussing. Look for common deflection tactics and fallacies. You'll find plenty that you've used in our history.

But they're going to say, 'she doesn't represent everyone in the party.' Not understanding that just about every argument, presented by supporters of her party on this forum, has hinged on a small % of a population doing a thing. A thing we can all agree to, is bad. But then the entire group is maligned because of the actions of said few. Live by it, die by it. Or just give it up because it isn't a very good way of making your point. But then how are we suppose to advocate for keeping migrants out of this country if we can't point to a few people doing bad things? (hint: go yell at clouds, cuz its what you're doing anyway)

You do not have a crystal ball to see into someone's motivations. The tactic of, 'its just common sense' doesn't work here. If you had evidence of what you claim, you would post it here. Since you didn't, I'll assume as you did(but with way more evidence), that you don't. Please prove me wrong? Evidence of the taxation thing for which you claim? Who said what? What were some other characteristics of that group? Do can you see a parallel between them and a political party today? (Hint: modern republicans, they are more like modern republicans than democrats, and I would hope that you knew that despite your best effort to convince me otherwise) Who advocates, which legitimate decision maker advocates for that position? I know a bunch of maga-morons make the claim and others repeat it like they need a cracker. Show the evidence. You aren't very good at this. Make it tougher to shoot your crackpot-theory down. I don't even have to disagree. I just have to ask where your information comes from. Then you don't offer it because it doesn't exist. 'Echoes of the past' interesting choice of words. Who wants an ethnocratic state? (hint: Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke at an event led by a white nationalist and has no regrets) Who wants a theocracy? (hint: MTG, “I also call myself a Christian nationalist — and that’s not a bad word.”) Was it irony or a pun that you used, 'Echoes of the past'? Cuz you're hilarious if it was one or ignorant/malicious if the other. Care to pick? And yes, conservatives in this country have changed the name of their organization a few times. They did some horrible things to people and this country through those people. Repeat, conservatives! Republicans today are not the party of Lincoln, even though they'd probably get along because he was pretty racist too. But he put country first, that's the big difference.

Any chance that you could 'steel man' my point so I know we're not just typing past each other? Rather an restating something that you can just go back and read.

My guess for best chances at VP 1. Kari Lake, a spitting image of 45 and from a state they desperately need to win 2. Elise Stefanik, similar lunacy as Lake, but from a state they have no chance of winning. Might be a choice out of spite. Which would track. 3. Just about everyone else is a legit politician that might work against the wishes of the orange one, at some point, because they understand the world as it is, or they are from a state that is already in the bag or are Ben Carson.

'To those with privilege, equality feels like oppression' Could not think of a post that puts this saying into more stark clarity. TK, so glad this is parody or it would be worrisome. Keep it up! https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/demographic-profiles-of-republican-and-democratic-voters/#:~:text=than Republican voters.-,Racial and ethnic composition of 2022 voters,2018 (65%) were White. BTW, the demographics that make up the republican party have been running the country since before it was a country. Seems as though your worry is based on things leveling out and one side being brought to account for things they had, until recently, were able to get away with. Sucks to suck! Sweet sweet alligator tears.

Sorry. You probably didn't understand what I was trying to say. You can't prove that my information is wrong. Its your fault. You're bad at this. Again sorry that you couldn't wrap your mind around the idea. But like I mentioned, sense is not common. As we have all just learned.

Please, connect those dots? Soros - DAs - Every Single Crime Policy in big cities Also, please explain how they are nefarious? Are you concerned at all that GS has and continues to be used as a place holder for racist views about Jewish people? Lets take a step back first. Are you aware that (see subject matter of question above) is a thing that happens? Cuz it does. Are you sure you want to be associated, even accidentally, to people like that?

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-bandwagon/#:~:text=The bandwagon fallacy is also,it comes out this weekend. All an appeal to the crowd. Linked, in case you want to know how and why this argument holds NO WATER! At no point can you say how often this is happening from the group of people you are alleging are the culprits. That it happens at all is bad, I agree. Glad they were caught in this situation. Your appeal to emotion should alarm you as to how you are coming to your conclusions. Also the name calling too. Regulate your emotions and find a better argument. You are trying to browbeat someone into following your conclusion on bad evidence. You shouldn't believe this either for those reasons. You have a crappy method of discerning what is true. For which I will guarantee you will not think critically about. But would serve you well to try.

Would love to know how you equate the two.

There is no such thing as common sense. People use it to convince themselves they could not possibly have bad information. Rather then being open to the idea that you don't know everything about anything. They dig in and refuse to accept things that might make them use energy to change their mind. Also the sunken cost fallacy plays in heavily to not changing your mind. People don't want to give up on an issue if they've committed time and energy and part of their identity to this thing being true(I'll bet you can think of a few examples for yourself). Example: religion. Takes people a long time to realize its all BS. But they are committed, usually before they have memory of it, to this thing that makes up their whole world. Why do you think the rates of theism among people raised athiest is so very, very, low? They learn that is all trickery and can see through the tactics better. Sorry, spoiler alert. Religion is BS. Change my mind! Maybe we can start a new thread for this one.