• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Summery in March (SCO v 31)

waiguoren said:
From /r/democrats:
Click to expand...

^^^ tribalism in action.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

One of the cutting-edge advances in fallacy-ology has been the weak man, a terribly-named cousin of the straw man. The straw man is a terrible argument nobody really holds, which was only invented so your side had something easy to defeat. The weak man is a terrible argument that only a few unrepresentative people hold, which was only brought to prominence so your side had something easy to defeat.

For example, “I am a proud atheist and I don’t like religion. Think of the terrible things done by religion, like the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. They try to disturb the funerals of heroes because they think God hates everybody. But this is horrible. Religious people can’t justify why they do things like this. That’s why I’m proud to be an atheist.”

It’s not a straw man. There really is a Westboro Baptist Church, for some reason. But one still feels like the atheist is making things just a little too easy on himself.

Maybe the problem is that the atheist is indirectly suggesting that Westboro Baptist Church is typical of religion? An implied falsehood?

Then suppose the atheist posts on Tumblr: “I hate religious people who are rabidly certain that the world was created in seven days or that all their enemies will burn in Hell, and try to justify it through ‘faith’. You know, the sort of people who think that the Bible has all the answers and who hate anyone who tries to think for themselves.”

Now there’s practically no implication that these people are typical. So that’s fine, right?

On the other side of the world, a religious person is writing “I hate atheists who think morality is relative, and that this gives them the right to murder however many people stand between them and a world where no one is allowed to believe in God”.

Again, not a straw man. The Soviet Union contained several million of these people. But if you’re an atheist, would you just let this pass?

How about “I hate black thugs who rob people”?

What are the chances a black guy reads that and says “Well, good thing I’m not a thug who robs people, he’ll probably love me”?
Click to expand...
 
From /r/Democrats:

KillerKittenInPJs
9 points · 7 hours ago


I am so tired of him getting away with everything. Lindsay Graham was on TV saying that he wants to know more about Clinton’s emails and wants a new investigation of them.

I want to scream and rage and weep at the same time. This has taught me that are politicians will not be held accountable by any power other than our elections. We are now a country ruled by corporations and I just want to lie down for like a week.​
 
Factory said:
Well, you are talking to a bunch of degenerated losers. The Trump presidency destroyed their functional brain cells and no I don't think they are trolling. They have swallowed everything. Meth is a hell of a drug but compared to CNN, Maddow and Co. it's obviously nothing.

Out of sudden collusion and Russian conspiracy isn't even at the focus anymore. Now it's all about 'obstruction' and just because Mueller didn't find evidences against Trump, this doesn't automatically mean Trump is innocent.

<TheDonald>
Also, Barr is a Russian troll, who rotated the Mueller report by 180 degrees exactly. <Varys01>
Click to expand...

Glenn Greenwald hates Donald Trump but gives by far the best overview of ruusiagate I've heard yet. Everyone should
LISTEN.
 
 
bobgeese said:
...Oh wait, you’re desperately holding on to this straw to prevent yourself from admitting you’ve embarrassed yourself thoroughly for two years straight...
Click to expand...

If there is any straw here, it's in what Barr said about the evidence for obstruction in Mueller's report. Argue with Barr if you don't like it, I've only posted what he said here. These aren't my opinions, they're facts from Barr's mouth. I don't know why they upset you so much, unless you're worried about what might come out if anyone can get the report to the public.
 
waiguoren said:
We finally agree on something. When those reddit Democrats put party before country, they should be called out on it.
Click to expand...

You don't think that it's an example of dishonest argumentation and rank tribalism to actually post comments from anonymous randos as if it makes any kind of larger point?
 
My God, there is no hope left for Liberals. The insanity in this thread is mind blowing. Even @Jack V Savage, one who prides himself on calling out CT's, and letting the official findings speak for itself, has been reduced to "Something smells fishy". Good Lord.

Seek help. All of you you.
 
HereticBD said:
My God, there is no hope left for Liberals. The insanity in this thread is mind blowing. Even @Jack V Savage, one who prides himself on calling out CT's, and letting the official findings speak for itself, has been reduced to "Something smells fishy". Good Lord.

Seek help. All of you you.
Click to expand...

What I noted smells fishy is the way a poster professes to believe that the report looks good for Trump and to not be curious about why McConnell would suppress it. If you're in the same camp, what's your theory? Why would Schumer want the public to know what's in there, and why does McConnell not want the public to know?
 
Jack V Savage said:
What I noted smells fishy is the way a poster professes to believe that the report looks good for Trump and to not be curious about why McConnell would suppress it. If you're in the same camp, what's your theory?
Click to expand...

Trump wants it released. What's your theory about that?
 
Jack V Savage said:
Trump doesn't want it released. That's my theory.
Click to expand...

Oh', that makes total sense. Kind of like how Mueller finding nothing on Trump, means that he actually found something on Trump...

You guys are fucking insane.
 
computer fogie said:
You're still ignoring what Mueller's report said, which is all I've been saying here. Saying Trump was exonerated of obstruction only applies to Barr's decision, not the evidence in Mueller's report.
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ, you’re hopeless...

Meullers report said nothing about the decision. He left it up to his boss. Like all sane intelligent people, I’m accepting his boss’s decision, reached through consulting RR and experts in the field.

Let’s try this another way. Don’t you think after years of work, if Meuller vehamitlgy disagreed with his boss’s decision, he would just sit there silently?

Homer is already implying he’s a coward. Are you?
 
HereticBD said:
Oh', that makes total sense. Kind of like how Mueller finding nothing on Trump, means that he actually found something on Trump...

You guys are fucking insane.
Click to expand...

McConnell is taking concrete action to try to prevent the public from knowing what's in there. If Trump fights him on that, I'll believe that Trump wants people to know. And "Mueller finding nothing on Trump" is a claim you're making with no basis at all. There have already been multiple indictments and guilty pleas here.
 
BudKing8806 said:
Holy fuck at the meltdowns in this mother fucker.
Click to expand...

And it's interesting how Republican partisans are both angrily melting down AND trying to claim victory. That's another thing that seems fishy (in that one gets the sense these guys don't believe what they're saying).
 
Yorkist said:
You like to think you know all that but you don't actually know anything. You're just a guy reading the news. You have no inside information whatsoever on anything.

And it's not an attack to point out that you pretend to know a lot of stuff you don't actually know about.
Click to expand...

I would be careful, he's one of the smartest guys in the room always talking about iq and how he Never watches Fox News.
He's probably right about every notion that's crossed his mind and will be vindicated once the whole report is released.
 
computer fogie said:
If there is any straw here, it's in what Barr said about the evidence for obstruction in Mueller's report. Argue with Barr if you don't like it, I've only posted what he said here. These aren't my opinions, they're facts from Barr's mouth. I don't know why they upset you so much, unless you're worried about what might come out if anyone can get the report to the public.
Click to expand...


If I don’t like it?

I’ve literally been telling you this for two years. Only brainlets and rank amateur political observers didn’t understand this from day one. Option 3, and the only acceptable answer, is that you’re a partisan (as I am).

So, which is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,634
Messages
58,382,116
Members
176,017
Latest member
KTFOPerformance

Share this page

Back
Top