Ha, you’re going to do well around here. “Clinton supported Iraq due to 9/11!” “But… that’s what the republicans said and we were all aghast at how stupid it was” “WHATEVER YOU’LL NEVER BE CONVINCED, LATERZ BRO, I WIN”
Rand Paul and… umm… everyone else.
But the thing is that Sanders wouldn’t get those voters free public school tuition or single-payer health care payable by the rich and day traders. Both because his plans are incomplete at best, and because he’d need a lot of other Democratic politicians voted in and he hasn’t worked on supporting many. I don’t know what reforms either of them have stated for “taking away from the 1%” so I can’t compare their plans there.
I hope Sanders does start supporting more down ticket races, and even more I hope that he rallies his voters in 2018 for the midterm races. He’s talked a lot about his revolution, and how he’ll keep things going, I hope he really means that and is not just saying it for attention.
There are no words. Even “cite?” quails before this argument.
None of this makes any sense. Prove a negative? SenorBeef is just unwilling to forgive Hillary for her Iraq war vote. There was plenty of reasons back then that it was a bad idea and history has shown it was a really bad idea.There was never good evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 either. What shades of grey do you want him to consider? That he should cut Hillary some slack because she merely jumped on the blind vengeance bandwagon?
Do you understand what happened?
He said, essentially, Hillary was right to support Iraq because 9/11.
I said 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq and that’s a ridiculous argument.
He says whatever, clearly you can’t be convinced, I give up.
So I say actually, I’m quite convincible, but you haven’t made an argument.
So in this exchange, you find him saying “whatever, I’m not gonna try to substantiate my points because you’d never listen anyway!”, and I say “actually, I am listening, you just aren’t making an argument”, and you’re exasperated at my side of the argument here?
Partisanship in action. You view him as being on your side, so you attack me, even though he is the one who made the laughable cop-out rather than putting forth an argument.
What you said is called begging the question.
-
I am utterly convincable and I would buy your argument were it any good.
-
I do not buy your argument.
-
Therefore your argument isn’t any good and I am not convinced.
There is no way for someone to win against this argument. It’s also not quite in line with empirical skepticism.
Re-read the conversation.
He was the one who said, essentially, “oh, I’ve got this awesome argument I could make, but I won’t be bothered, because you just never would believe me no matter what I said, so why bother”
My reply to that was “actually, I’ve got a long history of changing my opinions based on arguments that have been put forth to me, so your characterization of me isn’t true at all. Rather, you clearly have no foot to stand on in this argument, so you are giving a false reason as to why you’re choosing not to support your argument”
I did not dismiss his argument with begging the question. I dismissed his argument by pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He then had a follow up character attack on me - “nothing could possibly convince you!” - and the comment you decided to criticize was a response to that character attack. It was not a fallacious statement at all, you merely chose to grasp at straws.
It’s funny because you are serving as an example of the partisanship I speak of: he clearly is doing an awful job of arguing his point, and bowed out with a pathetic copout. But because you’ve decided that he is on your side, and I am not, you actually focus on how my response to his cop-out is fallacious. You’re not interested in getting to the truth of the matter or evaluating critically. You’re interested in attacking the other side. Look at yourself.
SenorBeef was rejecting 9/11 as an argument but was saying he was open to a reasonable argument. You haven’t caught him in some logical fallacy.
To add: you’re siding with the guy who’s justifying the Iraq war because of 9/11, and siding against the guy who’s calling BS on that. That’s the sort of mental gymnastics that partisanship gets you. It’s the opposite of intellectual integrity and skepticism.
I’m responding only to the post I quoted, which is a classic logical fallacy. You want the fact that you are unpersuaded to be evidence that his argument was bad because of your assertion that you are persuadable. Therefore, anything that fails to persuade you is a bad argument.
Are there people who will not say they are open to a reasonable argument? Heck, are there people who don’t believe they are open to a reasonable argument? People think they are utterly reasonable. That’s what people do.
Do you believe that if he says he’s open to reasonable argument, that means that he’s open to reasonable argument, and therefore if he is not persuaded that means the argument was not reasonable?
ETA: Goddamn, I’m adding to a hijack, which pisses me off. I’m willing to continue this conversation in another thread, but not this one.
Why not respond to the other arguments, SenorBeef? For example, my argument that supporting Hillary Clinton, should she be nominated, is absolutely vital to defeating the Republican candidate, who would be far, far more damaging to the country.
I’m still amazed that, having had it pointed out to you in detail, you’re still not getting it.
He made the assertion that argument was useless because I’m unpersuadable. That’s both an attack on who I am - one he has no evidence to justify whatsoever - and a cop-out, a way for him to avoid actually having to make a substantial argument.
I did not dismiss any argument because I am persuadable. I dismissed his copout, which was “I couldn’t convince you anyway, so I’m not going to try!”
I refuted his argument in post 111. I refuted his cop-out in post 116.
His behavior here was infantile, and yet you seek to criticize my dismissal of that infantile behavior, rather than his behavior itself. Because you view him as being on your side, and so you stick up for him, even when he’s obviously wrong, and obviously not bringing any substantial discussion, even when he’s blaming 9/11 on Iraq like any delusional republican would.
These are the pretzels you twist yourself into in order to attack me, since you view me as being against your group. You’re giving a really great example of why partisanship is anti-intellectual.
He didn’t say that. You added that part to complete your logical fallacy circle.
Anyway this whole thing is stupid because you jumped on one sentence without bothering to understand the conversation.
QFT.
I think Clinton’s vote for Iraq was much worse than you are painting it. I also think it was not as bad as some others paint it.
Part of me agrees that context, and popularly-held beliefs are relevant, but of course that can go awry very quickly, especially when so many emotions are involved as they were after 9-11.
The nuance in the vote is the question of what exactly she was voting for, and what the understanding of the time was for that decision. I don’t think it can be defended in any way otherwise.
My purpose in this thread was to stop people from being assholes to Bernie supporters because they wanted to vote their conscience. To fight the idea that people had some sort of moral obligation to be loyal to the democratic party, and if they don’t, then they’re somehow wrong. Such an attitude actually hurts your cause - I may end up being a “hold your nose and vote” Clinton supporter, but the rhetoric around here bashing Bernie supporters disgusts me. I criticized someone for refusing to support a candidate because of their supporters, so I’m trying not to do the same, but it makes me deeply uncomfortable to get on board with you people. I’m a very tepid Bernie supporter (he’s the only guy running who I actually think would attempt to do the job with integrity, but I don’t think he’d be successful in getting much done), and if your behavior disgusts me this much, it justiably disgusts them even more because they’re being more directly attacked.
You’re going to cost yourself the support of those newly awakened active young people involved in politics this time around by telling them they’re stupid to be idealistic, Clinton is going to happen, you can’t change anything, it’s going to be the same old same old, shut up and take it, you have to be loyal to a party that you don’t even feel really represents you.
And you will have deserved it.
??? What does any of this have to do with me?
Oh please. If I go digging around to the posts during that time, am I going to find you cheerleading the Iraq war, because hey, 9/11 happened, let’s just invade some random unrelated country because we have the national collective emotional maturity of toddler?
Everyone knew Iraq was bullshit from the start. There was no “at the time” understanding. Clinton voted for it because she’s a war-monger. Has there ever been a potential US military intervention that she doesn’t like?
“We have to invade Iraq because of 9/11!” is apparently the battlecry of low-IQ fox news watchers from 2003, and suddenly Clinton supporters.
You asked why I wasn’t addressing the issue of voting for the lesser of two evils. That wasn’t my point upon entering this thread. I was explaining why I didn’t address the issue, which I felt was at a tangent to what I was actually arguing.