I believe **BobLibDem **may be of a similar opinion.
But anyway, yes - the “unacceptable” argument was/is a version of the fallacy in which people think that because Outcome X is undesirable, that Outcome X is therefore not possible.
Yeah, maybe! 
Anyway, I don’t understand how you can be accountable for an edict or commandment. kaylasdad99 wasn’t making a prediction, he was making a proclamation. What is there to be accountable for? This whole thread is a miss for me.
F-P is more correct, IMO, that it would make more sense to call out posters who stated confidently that Republicans no longer have a chance to win due to the E-C or demographic changes or whatever. That couldn’t be more wrong, and I could see holding a poster accountable for that prediction. That’s not what kaylasdad99 did, though. He, possibly tongue-in-cheek, would pop into threads and make his proclamation.
Also, I didn’t realize you could call someone out like this in any area other than the Pit.
Precisely.
Precisely, what? I agree with F-P, but it’s irrelevant to what kaylasdad99 wrote over the years. He didn’t make a prediction or assertion, he stated that he, personally, has decreed that a Republican is not allowed to be president. He didn’t say that a Republican can’t be president because of demographics, electoral college, policies, minority turnout, etc. He just decreed that they can’t be president.
I don’t think the difference here is that subtle.
Are you sure you have any interest in participating in forums of a message board dedicating to fighting ignorance?
Rather than address your claims seriatim, I will address them in order from most outrageously incorrect, in my view, to least:
People make incorrect predictions all the time. It is nearly universally regarded as a “jerk move” to then come out and say “I told you so.” The impropriety increases with the level of hurt the person experiences for being wrong. And Trump winning is hurtful to everyone.
Just… wow. There is a huge distinction between a prediction that acknowledges the fact there is room for error, and a prediction that admits no uncertainty. Many many people predicted Clinton victory; notice I am not calling them all out. But this particular prediction was not only wrong, but more sweeping: not just that Clinton would beat Trump, but that no Republican would ever again win the White House - and that such a thing was in effect impossible, a paradox to even discuss.
That type of behavior is in fact very much in need of an “I told you so.”
And Trump winning is not hurtful to everyone. Lots of folks are thrilled. I’m not, I admit, but I’m not nearly so arrogant to insist that my feelings must be shared by all.
*The accountability explanation doesn’t wash, because kaylasdad is not remotely accountable to Bricker. *
Sure he is. He posts on this same board, he answers hypotheticals about future GOP wins, no matter what candidate, with a claim that they are patently paradoxical. Why in the world can I not now call him to account for the discrepancy between his words then and reality now?
*All this thread does is serve to make someone who is already hurting feel worse. It’s definitely not going to make people change how they predict things. In fact, I would guess it would have the opposite response. *
Gosh, BigT. It was hurtful to me when kaylasdad99 said that no Republican could ever be President again. I only wish you could have been there to take him to task over that hurt he inflicted. Every time he said it, it made me feel worse.
In fact, now you are starting to make me feel hurt.
Yup. Wait a second… yes, for sure, that’s hurt I feel as I read your words. I want you to know that if you continue to upbraid me, you will only make me feel worse.
Are you going to?
Are we about to learn that, oops, turns out making someone hurt is not in fact a barrier to pressing one’s point in debate?
See, this is a debate. It requires perforce that people take up contrary positions. My position is that kaylasdad99 adopted an unstainable and unjustified approach to the question of the possibility of a Republican winning the presidency.
Thus my position stands opposed to his.
It may well be that he is hurt by being reminded of the unstainable and unjustified approach he took to the question of the possibility of a Republican winning the presidency.
But his being hurt by such a reminder is in no wise a reason I should refrain from arguing my side of the debate, and your apparent idea that I should is, to use a technical rhetor’s term, whackadoodle.
Bear in mind that any rebuttal you make to these points risks hurting me more.
“Unacceptable” does not mean “impossible”, and is nearly synonymous with “undesirable”. Merriam-Webster defines it as “not pleasing or welcome”.
It was unacceptable for you people to elect Obama to two terms, but the rest of us suffered through it. I imagine you’ll be able to suffter through two terms of Trump. And you’ll probably be a helluva better off than you are now.
I’m pretty sure Diogenes the Cynic had inclinations along those lines, also.
By what metric will they be better off? I only ask because your record with economic indicators is… not good.
Bricker - do you keep a list somewhere of bones you want to pick? The first cite in your OP dates back to Romney.
The only thing that will get settled here is that you and the subject of your OP disagree on the meaning of “unacceptable”. I think we’ve covered that.
My guess is that it is just a case of a person thinking, “I’ve seen this before.” You do a simple search on the web forum and find more results than expected. I think that’s all it is.
And on “paradox,” which the subject of my OP has now conceded was an inaccurate claim.
The answer is no, I don’t keep a list.
But I sense that there was an implicit criticism waiting in the wings if I said I did.
Why? If someone makes a confident assertion that is absurd on its face but can only be disproved in five years, let’s say, I sense from your question either incredulity or disapproval in the idea that this would be noted for action in five years.
If so – why? My point here is that it’s an improper rhetorical technique to offer up confident assertions without being accountable for them; such techniques reward poorly grounded claims. What possible reason for not keeping a list would be valid? I don’t crochet or collect stamps, so if I had enough free hobby time to catalog these things, why not?
The only thing I try to track is bets. But it’s not out of any sense that listing other such claims is wrong; I just am too lazy to do it justice.
He didn’t make an assertion, he issued a commandment. And, I’m sad that you’re not responding to my posts on this point. See, here’s my sad face –> 
There are plenty of posters who made assertions on Republicans facing perpetual defeat due to demographics, etc. I think your bone of contention should be with them. kaylasdad99 didn’t confidently predict anything, he required that no Republicans become president. There really is a difference. Still sad –>:(
My position is that in debate, issuing such a command amounts to a rhetor’s assertion.
Yes, there were. But so far as I recall, only kaylasdad99 contended impossibility, literally, rather than unlikelihood.
“You people”?
[QUOTE=Carroll]
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
[/QUOTE]
OK, have at it, counselor!
I’ve offered the rationale for my claim. You’re welcome to mock it, of course…
…but Trump is still President-Elect, so I respectfully suggest to you that perhaps mocking has not borne fruit as a valuable tool.
No, you’ve redefined a proclamation or command to be some sort of argumentative assertion.
“I assert that Republicans will never be president because <insert reasoning here>” is different than “I, RitterSport, hereby declare that Republicans are no longer allowed to hold the office of the presidency.”
The first is an argument with, apparently flawed, reasoning behind it. The second is simply a proclamation, with no reasoning or argument. It’s a joke, or a desperate call, but it’s not an argument.
You haven’t offered a rationale, you’ve redefined the words.
Yea, I did.
Prior to the election, it was a clean, safe, turnip truck. But now it is a Republican-controlled turnip truck. The railings have been removed, the brakes are shot, the windshield has a crack in it, and the sign that used to say “Please use your seatbelt” was plastered over with a sticker of Trump peeing on the Constitution.
As the truck was heading for a cliff, we hit a bump and the worn out shocks caused the truck to bounce too hard and I was thrown clear.
My sense is that, at a minimum, this assertion really irritated you. Chafed. Therefore you tracked it. The only criticism I have of that is that I disagree with the definition you are using for “unacceptable”, so I find your entire premise silly. It was also obvious that kd99 was being facetious. He has no power to decree anything.
(I agree with others by the way that “unacceptable” was being used in the dictionary sense, as provided by Lamia:
)
You and I will disagree on this.
I also don’t see what you’ve accomplished other than to point out that KD99 said having a Republican president was unacceptable, a point of view he undoubtedly still holds, but hey look, we have one. Nudge, nudge. What do you think of them apples? I’m merely observing, from the sidelines, that this little disagreement about the terminology just comes across as kicking a guy when he’s down. My observation only on the appearance of it.
Yes, I acknowledge this is a forum for debate and truthiness. Yes, you are within your rights to call someone on it when they are wrong. Lots and lots of people have been wrong on this. Can we expect more of the same?
Changing the subject just a bit: In all seriousness, as a reasoned conservative, if you were to start an analysis thread on the future of liberals (or conservatives), I would welcome that discussion. We have a fair number of shit-throwing monkeys going right now in other threads, but I would really like to discuss the future of the two parties in a mature way. (Yes, I can start my own thread. Perhaps I could start one on liberals and you one on conservatives?) Larger point - your input into those discussions would help us with this echo chamber effect we’re questioning right now and that is valuable.