Your point is valid inasmuch as Trump is not being very strong on the riots other than talking. And some of us are like..."by not doing anything he's protecting muh federalism!" LOL, it gets beyond a little frustrating watching so many months of it, given the scale. Then you have the gang stalking and all the rest of it yet besides.
Basically it's quite agreeable we need to start matching their aggression, else we are complacent with being mowed. And we will get mowed if it continues. But of course if you mean literally end as in kill, no we're not at that point yet. I take it as you are being hyperbolic to make the matched aggression point. And that is one I highly agree with for where we are right now.
-So you understand my point of view in detail I am perfectly comfortable with ad hominem but generally aim to avoid it in the interest of demonstrating an ability to debate beyond the early elementary school level for the most part. But occasional spice or humor worked in is more along the lines of just not being boring or keeping it real.
Further it is not technically ad hominem nor any other item you attempted to frame as fallacious use. Here's why: Fallacious use is not about restating your position in my own words or something because we have the word strawman that describes something like that, lol. That actually would not be a strawman fallacy.
Fallacious use is all about using the particular tactic described or the systematic use of various of them in a methodical attempt to evade examination and supporting evidence of the original core topic, your original comments. So while you may think you seem creative in fact you are simply demonstrating fallacy after fallacy in every part of every message you fail to produce any supporting evidence for your original comments. It is not fallacious for me to reply with what's wrong with your little diversions in detail. It is logical to respond and aim to get back to point A at the same time. That's the key tell: Obviously my primary focus is not evasion of the core topic, but pursuit of it. Secondarily I answer your fallacious diversions. It is not fallacious to describe what you are doing in such messages nor to respond to it in all of its implications. Plainly, you have demonstrated no awareness of this. So much for your education. See the problem?
I aim to be reasonable where I can. A little ad hominem is probably to be expected and natural to a certain extent. So I am not bothered by it because it can also be an indication of candor or sincerity and it can add spice. But then it should be creative or humorous in some way to the extent possible. Often the other will not laugh but then minimally I would say there should be a perceptible attempt at humor that gets across at least. So saying, as you quoted "You need to get an education (right back in responding to you doing basically the same thing), but nice projection Hannibal“ is not quite the same as just calling people idiots and uneducated super methodically as you have in countless examples under this post simply because they have a different point of view and want to talk to you and explore yours and the contrasts with theirs.
That is not someone likely to be educated for another set of reasons too: It directly demonstrates extreme closed mindedness to learning anything they don't already think. It is evasion and demonstrable hostility towards diversity of opinion, and it conveys extreme avoidance and fear of exploring their own stated views as well. Exceptions understandably occur, but mostly such people are simply not your "thinkers."
Saying things like "idiot" every two seconds to various people who engage you, or repeating Democrats who lost the civil war by just making up that you are more educated than someone with a masters when you still can't defend your first few comments is only self-deprecating to you. Because it reflects a bad attitude, evasion, inability or unwillingness to defend the things they say, total lack of creativity, lying, poor social skills and low IQ on the part of that person, desperation, fear, etc. Not the people they are calling idiot. That is the opposite of sounding more intelligent, basically saying idiot to people over and over. It is itself the telltale language limitations of the simpleton. Prove me wrong.
-Abortion and urban plantations have only grown US socialism and communism as well as mass murder via infanticide in those same areas. It does not create a net reduction at all nor anything even close. When does the reduction start since we are 50 million in then do you suppose? Applying that logic in hypothetical after hypothetical is actually fabulous for the Democrats. The reason is your argument would hypothetically 86 Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan as to you they just should of been leftists killing themselves. Far from being bad for Democrats it is plain your thinking would make it unlikely there would even be a Republican Party.
-Your argument reveals a gaping chasm in your understanding of how the parties differ in makeup and acquire membership through the lifespan. Overwhelmingly younger voters vote left. The decade after their frontal lobes are fully formed in their late twenties, when they have been out of the taxpayer funded madrassas baptizing them in the state religion of leftism full time and into the real world during their 30s is the age range the largest swell of voters migrating from left to right occurs. Other co-factors cited are often simply the experience gained from the time they are able to vote based on hearing pie in the sky promises and then watching the actual results as a participating voter over the course of a few elections is itself most educational for those who take interest contributing to this mass shift in the 30s. Those in this migratory swell also tend to cite growing tired of being emotionally manipulated by this point.
This is yet another complex set of problems neglected in your arguments, which are really just oversimplifications you don't appear to want to have to expend mental energy understanding. So you see it is not Democrats primarily hurting Democrats at all. It should be self-evident Democrats are not hurting their ability to seize power on its face given they oppose things they previously supported on a dime on an ongoing basis simply to oppose whatever King Trump says for example. You would be primarily preventing Republican majorities in actuality. Despite the unique issues surrounding the bulk of the black vote for example. And again your logic hypothetically applied would seem to prevent the ending of slavery as we experienced it and appears as working to ensure the Republican Party existing today given Lincoln and Reagan's families were not born of Republicans exists at all.
Back then you had a pro slavery party, and a party that was "pro choice" on slavery. As with abortion these are both euphemisms showing intent to lie. If you support abortion as ok, you are pro legalized abortion. There is no difference other than the intent to mislead to make one sound nicer rather than saying that's true, both are pro abortion. So that demonstrates intent to be intellectually dishonest. As I said, Hitler was not for abortion for his personal offspring either. That's in no way a feather in either your cap or his cap.
-Hitler and the Democrat KKK sure understood that opinion in their day. Again, the results of what you propose have only ever increased it. So you see it is only one giant telltale logical inconsistency after another without any evidence to support it. You advocate the Hitler position and regard it as high IQ in the modern first world. Dude, do you know how much that amuses me. It is a very outdated failed point of view. I agree you did not say the exact words to describe the exact same thing you explained as I did. That's the beauty of speaking a language like English fluently. I don't actually have to repeat your preferred slogan to still describe exactly what you have conveyed and to talk about what it means, what it's saying, what it advocates with you. It does not need to be an exact quote to convey the exact same meaning in a language like English. You won't disagree. What you are actually doing is attempting to prevent examination and disagreement through discussion that reveals your view for what it is. If no words but mine may be used you could never materially answer me. You would had to have been replying with agreement and my quotes entirely. Ah ah, nothing else is permissible.
-Supporting murder is not choice. It's the explicit abnegation of individual choice, condoning ending the most innocent life among us for convenience. It is not being for "choice" to prevent an individual from having any. It doesn't work anymore bro. You are not actually conservative if you think it to be otherwise. That is manifestly not conservative. Thus yet another telltale indication you are full of shit as was already indicated by another user.
-Correct, I won't because as extensively described it is an lolzy transparently hasty generalization fallacy on your part.
-You have not even started to refute anything that would be non fallacious. To start you would have to support your own original comments and provide the citations you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to provide when asked. All of your ad hominem and everything since is only you attempting to stay away from something you were manifestly unable to support or provide citations for multiple times. If you're trying to fool anyone you're wasting your time unless you are just trying to fool yourself. It would be a disservice to you to pretend it could appear otherwise.
-I am quite familiar with abortion statistics. For example due to privacy laws there are no great hard stats on political views when going into get your child doused with saline solution, poisoned, cut up, and sucked out. But as it turns out it doesn't matter. I'm supposed to provide every citation you couldn't make and teach them and you? Fucking unlearned peasant. Spewing peasant bullshit.
-If it's a novel obviously you lack the mental energy for actual novels then. That is also under the category of not my problem.
-Yes it is obvious indeed you are simply repelled by sustained interest in the details. It would seem to be your most obviously sincere statement. That's why you don't know anything. The work of focusing is too much for you. You think saying idiot is compensation. No, it's totally obvious. Don't worry.
-Except you still are focusing on this minutia because you want it to be forgotten way back in the thread that when asked again and again and again you could cite 0. You could could produce 0 evidence. Other than this sort of back and forth that you are trying very hard to make about everything but the obvious. Which is you cannot support the topic. Beyond this you actually asked me to support your arguments for you with citations you could not provide. So, who's the real clown though bro. As with everything else, you obviously don't know that either. Prove me wrong.
-Again those are assertions of rightness, without even an underlying argument to support them. You are really asserting science exists you could not produce and then asking me to accept that asserting something is correct you could not coherently detail somehow proves mass infanticide hurts Democrats. Supporting the issue the Democrats care more about than any other, other than perhaps immigration, hurts them in your view.
You are the personification of a clown.
They would seem to in various respects certainly. What scientific evidence do you have to support that environment is more important?
Blacks switched to majority Democrat support in 4 years as a result of FDR's New Deal benefits. So you share the Democrat / Margaret Sanger / KKK position on abortion. There you go, lol. Dude, are you for real with this stuff? 😂
So rather than repeal the policies that created the environment or some similar type of activism focused on the legislative side or something (of which there will be a wide variety of options ) you're for continuing the left's "choice" practice of just starting with the most innocent living there, punching a hole in their heads, sucking out the brains, taking off the head and then pulling their bodies apart and out of the birth canal in little pieces like Sanger, Hitler, and the Democrat KKK? Lol, so then you are defeating yourself again because that has only resulted in sustaining and growing the environment facilitating the constant harvest and slaughter of innocent human beings while growing communism and socialism at the same time. It is nonsensical. Have you ever visited the US from your native country? Everyone here knows that will not fix the problem as obviously they've been doing exactly that for decades upon decades upon decades. That resulted in mass net growth of those things you claim to oppose all across the US. See the problem? 🤣🤣
The popularity of communism has grown under it in those areas and we have more blacks in cities like NY aborted than born alive annually as the communism and socialism increases.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
~Albert Einstein and apparent moron, lol.
Let me know when you get to the dismantling.
-Yes, it was 4 when it was 4. 1 when it was 1. It was more than 4 when you thought it was 4 and miscounted, and it was 8 when when it was 8. REEEEEEE. LOL! (He must of figured it would be bound to work on at least 1 person.) Critically the one with the most comments consistently is you, and was you at that time. Making it a nonsensical, imo childish and obvious attempted diversion from reality and the central topic on your part from the get go.
PRO TIP: If you're commenting most, you don't generally complain about someone's interest in what you said with far fewer comments, duh. Dismantling fail #1.
-Again ad hominem does not advance your argument any. It depreciates it. It's only an expression of your frustration. It shows you are seeking filler due to being short on substantive responses to the primary topic. It doesn't phase me for this reason. It is helpful to me.
-Oh I see. Replying methodically in one shot is "spamming" in your view but making several times more comments under the post over many hours and across multiple users as you consistently have is "not spamming" and thereby gets a positive connotation in your view? LOL too funny. Alternately how about I was focused and interested in what you were saying and not trolling people over 8 hours under one post. Do you think that is AS logical as your other arguments or do you deem it MORE so or LESS so in retrospect and why? I'll wait.
Again, pro choice necessarily = pro abortion. You are trying to have it all ways. Particularly foolish in a Republican heavy site. If you are on the right it would seem unlikely you would make this sort of miscalculation as leftists commonly do. I'm just sayin'.
-Yes I have always agreed that your argument is just that. It's not complicated. In actuality you are frustrated I understand what you are saying too much. I recognize what it means and have cut through your preferred way of spinning it and you don't like that. Good. You should not be supporting mass murder of innocent Americans on the basis of your faith belief they will commit thought crimes against the nation decades into the future for no valid scientific reason whatsoever. It is heinously anti-science. No amount of generic self-claims of it being based on valid credible "science" are going to hold up. You apparently realize this and aside from having no science to show-science you claim to be so familiar with it's cool to mass murder the innocent- you have yet to even make a weak attempt at finding something ad hoc to try to pass it off as what you were originally referring to LOL.
-Yes there are a long list of words, terms, and phrases for that you won't like being brought up in response, like aiding and abetting, Marxism, Saul Alinsky tactics, etc from various fields from the legal realm to social and political theory. Surely you understand even with low level crimes awareness and willful silence can result in long prison sentences for you. So mass murdering of the innocent because you believe they will commit thought crimes decades later is also pretty self-evident as QUITE FAR FROM OK as pertains to your own society. For this reason you are foolish to keep asking for them implicitly by repeatedly trying to pass that off as ok. Too many examples can be produced too easily to point out it's definitely not.
-No, while it's truly all too often the wrong comparison when people are quick to interject Hitler into political discussions, that would be except of course for where it directly applies.
-Exactly like you Adolf Hitler believed in the use of abortion for the purposes of Eugenics and genetic cleansing. Hitler believed in the forced "evolution" of humanity. He also believed in pursuing it through use of euphemisms and repetition of propagandistic linguistic games much as you are trying to have it both or all ways in your comments here where you support it but are also never encouraging it at various points when you seem to want to be able to say that for convenience in the next moment. The entire reason you are commenting so often under the post is your encouragement and support. You have then boxed yourself into owning that. Like a typical leftist you are trying to support it when you want and then keep claiming you aren't at all supporting it at the same time somehow. I doubt you'll get many buyers who wont instantly identify it on a Trump site whether you try to say you are conservative or not as leftist trolls often do.
-Among the "good people" Hitler ordered to be murdered were communists as you just argued and for that exact reason. So you see, you literally are making the same argument when you go on saying you hate communists so we should just keep quiet through their genetic cleansing via abortion / mass-murder.
-Like you, Hitler was not for abortion for himself either, dunce.
This was nothing other than rampant Darwinism eugenics— the elimination of millions of human beings branded ‘unfit/inferior’ by, and for the benefit of, those who regarded themselves as being ‘fit/superior’.
-There's nothing common sense about killing the innocent. You're making a fool of yourself on your own here bud.
-Killing an innocent person is promoting the denial of choice for the individuals entire lifespan. It is incontrovertibly anti-choice. Similarly you can say call prison a resort. It does not change the reality because you thought you could pull of being a manipulative liar by giving it pleasing sounding description. It actually just shows intent to deceive in addition to supporting something awful. Which makes it look even worse on your part bud.
-Oh I see. So then who are you working for while commenting in the thread? China? Joe the Sniffer?
+"“What science am I denying and could you provide peer-reviewed citations? I'll wait.“
Statistical science. Specifically the statistics pertaining to abortion demographics and the political affiliations o**f people who are far more likely to get abortions. Review the numbers yourself."
-You have only again demonstrated your failure to produce the very citations you're claiming to be referencing and relying on heavily. Do you understand this only demonstrates the reason is you are a liar for the reader?
Statistical sciences 101: Correlation ≠ causation. You were not asked to repeat yourself using different words. You were asked for the peer-reviewed citations you generically keep referring to. Where are they? It is not on me to provide your citations for you, particularly when your argument is about appeasing mass murder of innocent individuals. A maudlin Vegas strip lounge psychic couldn't get away with that routine, lol.
+"“How are totally innocent individuals your enemy or my enemy? That's just a crazy religious belief. It is self-evident offspring do not mirror every opinion of both parents? True or false?”
People who support communism and totalitarianism are my enemies; these people are far more likely to get abortions and it would terrible to deny them the freedom to make this choice. People who will inevitably grow up to support communism and totalitarianism are also my enemies.""
-You are supporting mass murder of the innocent for thought crimes you are convinced they will commit decades later in this very comment.
Yet earlier in the same comment of replies you directly tried to insist you were not supporting it. As someone else in these threads pointed out earlier: the reason is you are a liar.
As it happens I come from a large family of Democrats who have worked for the party at the state and local levels since 1919. I am far right. You would also be implicitly supporting hypothetical abortions of Ronald Reagan and Abe Lincoln applying your argument to them. Conservatism and America are about individualism. Not collectivist mass murder.
-You explicitly are. That literally IS your argument.
Supporting individuals choosing to take it upon themselves to murder innocent people IS supporting mass murder. Unfortunately there is no having it both ways. No semantical games will work on this. Pro-choice is pro-abortion. Sorry bud.
-Fallacy fallacy. If it were mostly about environment and demographics the country would then be close to or as conservative as it was in 1776. Thus you have again debunked yourself. Lol, too funny.
You would seem to be misattributing the reasons large %s of blacks have voted Democrat since FDR's New Deal welfare policies that caused the majority of blacks to switch parties in about 4 years.
And / or it would seem the third world demographic issue.
Critically it is the right of a society to determine their immigration policies. But we do not murder the innocent for thought crimes we imagine in a free society before they ever speak. That is the stuff of Nazism / fascism / totalitarianism.
-A child is a fetus by definition. Look it up. Offspring. Not that changing the name would change the reality anyway. And the reality is pro abortionists like yourself celebrate hacking up babies like ancient Spartans.
-If you support murdering the most innocent people for thought crimes you would be for what we fear the AOC's of the world turning into ultimately. And thus an even bigger evil. This isn't complicated. It's about as basic as it gets. You either support individuals in a society choosing freely to murder their child for convenience or you believe in freedom, human rights, and the individual.
-Anyone "pro choice" on mass murder of the innocent does not deserve a gulag. The same principles ought to be applied to them through the government as most societies throughout human history understand they have to protect the society from mass murderers and those who aid and abet them.
You need to get an education, but nice projection Hannibal. Judging from the totality of responses to you no one but you seems confused about your argument though. True or false?
You support mass murder of innocent individuals because you say genes will make them parrot their parents opinions so you're ok having ongoing and exponentially growing mass murder because murdering innocent individuals = destroying your enemies even though they are the most innocent humans among us now making that an oxymoron. You just know it. Science says so. I have a masters from a pretty good school in Human Neuropsychology, but the thing is you should know this is problematic by the seventh grade.
You are trying to escape badly now as you hoped not to have to hear responses to begin with and now that I have just asked you for peer reviewed citations you have indicated "it's been a pleasure talking to me" as we both understand fully where you are coming from and that you have none so far. The left often will leave at the point you ask for citations. The person who lacks the mental focus is the one trying to bolt when asked for citations, and otherwise reacts as you are to various people in the threads here the instant anyone wants to examine your own statements with you.
Simply put none of your projection, ad hominem, weak attempts at semantic games, or overtly pseudo scientific generic references to "science" in the abstract supports or advances your particular underlying argument any. Only expressions of your frustration.
Zzzzt!
You've been supporting abortion in your personal life over the past several hours, all of which is in the history here for all to see.
What science am I denying and could you provide peer-reviewed citations?
I'll wait.
How are totally innocent individuals your enemy or my enemy? That's just a crazy religious belief. It is self-evident offspring do not mirror every opinion of both parents? True or false?
Man I never fathomed I could find anything where I would defend Alexandria Venezuela Ocasio-Castro Cortez, but I will say this for the barmaid: I've heard her say all kinds of loony things, but I don't recall hearing her going so far as to promote mass abortion based simply on political affiliation in a free country as you are under the loony idea genes ensure if your parents support something you will. She said the thing about bringing out the guillotines, etc. lol. But not about children.
Do you support doing away will all protections for minors under US law then since you support murdering them?
You are. That IS your argument. Lol, if you're not suggesting that mass murder of the innocent needs any justification it would be even worse and then would seem you've just obliterated yourself.
Not murdering the innocent is a very very easy question-unless you're Hannible Lector.
"I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists? Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot one."
~Ann Coulter
-Wow, learn to count. I gave you way more than that. So in your view you're the only one who gets to comment so many times, but if someone replies just 4 times, which is the number you miscounted, it makes sense to be like "wow, dude" "Good grief" "you gave me 4 replies."
It makes sense you would try that, given your other argument as someone born already is to be tickled about killing the innocent waiting to be. There seems to be a pattern here.
- Killing the innocent is the mostly commonly recognized atrocity in all of human history. Snap out of it.
By that logic historical figures like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin are redeemed. Blood is often the hands of the military and those physically doing the killing. See the problem?
-LMAAAAOOOOOO @ "If you oppose totalitarianism and fascism then you should support legalized abortion. If zero babies were aborted then the vast majority would of them would grow up to become commies and support the radical left. There would be a lot more violent crime."
REEEEEEEEEEEEE
That comment approaches deserving its own meme trend it is so spectacularly STUPID and DELUSIONAL given it's the very perversions of eugenics you are advancing by Hitler's Nazi Party that made eugenics a dirty word and is broadly considered a top charahteristic trait or hallmark of fascism and totalitarianism.
There is one critical difference though. Hitler didn't kill 50 million with it as Democrats and people likes you have.
- Cultural arguments are fine on immigration, not mass murder. You are inherently arguing there is no free will so apparently to you the statistics lied extensively.
-Exact opposite is true. It is explicitly an argument of extreme stereotyping and prejudice. And it is supporting and compelling crimes against humanity just as it was to Hitler's top officers in the tribunals.
And that would apply if you count yourself as part of the Psychic Friends Miracle Network. It is the denial or rejection of scientific reality to promote normalizing mass murder of the innocent in normal conditions. It's kooky. Personality traits and individual preferences are determined by an interaction of nature and nurture. Unless your aim is translating Mein Kampf into English or something this should not be a tough one, lol.
You are making the ends justify the means argument explicitly. You just don't like the particular phrase apparently. But it is what you're arguing.
Taking innocent life most definitely requires one hell of an end justification. Prejudicing individuals as destined to share their parents views to shrug off their murder in advance for one person's convenience for a few years is ok to you? Really? It's really extreme when you think about it. The left uses euphemisms to promote abortion to keep people from thinking about it though.
It can be influenced just as much by John Locke though. Inalienable rights; the most basic among them is life. It's not ok to be for killing the most innocent among us whether religious or irreligious. The precedent is about as dangerous as they come. And the language of euphemisms they rely on to promote it is a repudiation of science.
They're terrible people, the pro choice crowd (/pro abortion crowd).......These are people who believe you can deliver a baby entirely except for the head, puncture the skull, suck the brains out and pronounce that a constitutional right has just been exercised. That really says it all.
Want to get rid of the ghettos? Get rid of the anti-family and pro-welfare Democrat policies that created them.
We don't need to be normally killing innocent people on a mass scale on the daily.
After WW2 the tribunal charged Hitler's top officers for promoting and compelling abortion, they called it a crime against humanity.
Most societies throughout all of human history do not allow indiscriminate murder of the innocent for convenience. It's a matter that affects all of society.
You are promoting totalitarianism and facism yourself with your view completely innocent people are somehow not individuals and are destined to be exactly like their parents so let's just kill off the bloodlines we don't like. It's stereotyping and true prejudice taken to an outlandish extreme.
It's definitely an atrocity after implantation. Audaciously so with late term and now post birth policies cropping up. Hitler was directly inspired by US Democrats to incorporate abortion into his eugenics. It's about saying some innocent life is worth more than others, and the idea some can have their corpses thrown into a dumpster for someone else's convenience.
kek