- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When did the right stop being about limited government and start peddling conspiracies?
Posted on 5/29/17 at 12:34 pm to Ebbandflow
Posted on 5/29/17 at 12:34 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
think aol of those reasons are valid and a lot of people I know also do.
None are valid and if you actually believe it than you
Are in the Alex Jones,Golden Nugget,Whiskey Papa lunatic fringe.
1
Posted on 5/29/17 at 12:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Yet you believe everything dear leader tells you
was 9/11 an inside job?
Posted on 5/29/17 at 12:45 pm to monsterballads
No
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:10 pm to Draconian Sanctions
How are the two items in the OP mutually exclusive?
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:35 pm to MasterofTigerBait
quote:
Whataboutism, is part of the problem.
If you don't like it leave. I saw nowhere in the rules that said we cannot defend our leaders by comparing them to your favorite leaders. It is perfectly ok to do that. Just because y'all came up with a nifty term....Whataboutism" doesn't mean it can't be talked about.
All we heard from Obama for 7 years was whataboutBushisms......
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:39 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I saw nowhere in the rules that said we cannot defend our leaders by comparing them to your favorite leaders. It is perfectly ok to do that.
Logical fallacies be damned
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:41 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
They were "targetted" in that an idiot (who was put there by a Republican) put in search terms that disproportionately flagged their applications.
And yet the left defended this person and is trying to shield them from prosecution and investigation. I don't care who appointed them. It was done under obama's watch, and probably according to his direction. It's amazing how it did not happen to the left under a the Republican that appointed her.
quote:
However, I think that they were overall properly flagged, just that a ton of other groups should have been as well.
Funny how the ones who were flagged were conservative groups and the hundreds of others who were not were liberal.
quote:
The conspiracy that you were pushing that Obama somehow "weaponized" the IRS is complete bs.
Why because it did not happen under a conservative President, and it did happen under Obama, and it was unfairly targeting conservative groups? Yeah. Probably all a misunderstanding.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:43 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Whataboutism is two-fold
It's illegitimate when discussing the substance of the matter. Politician A's policy sucks and in defense of the policy, you cite Politician B's shitty policy.
It is legitimate when discussing principles and hypocrisy. A person rallies for Trump's tax returns in hopes of disclosing illicit financial relationships yet completely ignores/defends the Clinton Foundation. It doesn't excuse Trump's relationships but simply acknowledges the fact that the person seeking the returns has no credibility and is a complete hack.
It's illegitimate when discussing the substance of the matter. Politician A's policy sucks and in defense of the policy, you cite Politician B's shitty policy.
It is legitimate when discussing principles and hypocrisy. A person rallies for Trump's tax returns in hopes of disclosing illicit financial relationships yet completely ignores/defends the Clinton Foundation. It doesn't excuse Trump's relationships but simply acknowledges the fact that the person seeking the returns has no credibility and is a complete hack.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:45 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Logical fallacies be damned
What logical fallacies would that be? I can't wait to hear them. I notice the left has no problem with whataboutisms when a thread is started about Hillary or Obama....but that's different, right? but go ahead...what logical fallacy are you referring to?
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:45 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
the person seeking the returns has no credibility and is a complete hack.
Well it is a draconian sanctions thread so....
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:49 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
It's illegitimate when discussing the substance of the matter. Politician A's policy sucks and in defense of the policy, you cite Politician B's shitty policy.
This wouldn't really be a Whataboutism, assuming our choices are just between Policy A and Policy B.
quote:
It is legitimate when discussing principles and hypocrisy. A person rallies for Trump's tax returns in hopes of disclosing illicit financial relationships yet completely ignores/defends the Clinton Foundation. It doesn't excuse Trump's relationships but simply acknowledges the fact that the person seeking the returns has no credibility and is a complete hack.
No, this is not legitimate. If Poster A starts a thread about Trump's taxes and Poster B responds with something about the Clinton Foundation, thats completely bogus. If you want to talk about the Clinton Foundation then start a new thread on it. If you have no response but to bring up something totally unrelated or to start making personal attacks, then you have no defense. Even if Poster A doesn't have any credibity, that still doesn't change anything regarding Trump's taxes and by taking that road you're no better than the person you claim has no credibility.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:49 pm to Draconian Sanctions
It's weird how you're trying to play this narrative in a vacuum...and it is ultimately based on the right having all the power.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:51 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
What logical fallacies would that be
It represents a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy),[4] a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.
quote:
I notice the left has no problem with whataboutisms when a thread is started about Hillary or Obama....but that's different, right?
No it's not different but you're literally using whataboutism to defend other whataboutisms
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:51 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Anyone still crying about trump's taxes is obviously just desperate to find a gotcha. It's a loser's argument.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:52 pm to DawgsLife
quote:Or people can point it out to you every time you use it. If you don't like it, ...
If you don't like it leave.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:53 pm to BeeFense5
It was just an example but, to clairify, you don't care about crony capitalism?
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I notice the left has no problem with whataboutisms when a thread is started about Hillary or Obama....but that's different, right?
No it's not different but you're literally using whataboutism to defend other whataboutisms
I believe that is my point. For the left it is perfectly acceptable to use whataboutisms, while looking down their noses and lecturing the right on using whataboutisms.
However, I have no problem with point out other peoples hypocrisy, and if I am being hypocritical, I have no problem with pointing out my hypocrisy.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:54 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
For the left it is perfectly acceptable to use whataboutisms
No, it isnt
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:57 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Or people can point it out to you every time you use it. If you don't like it, ...
Go ahead and point it out. I have no problem with using whataboutism, so I couldn't care less if you point it out. Then when you decide to pull a whataboutism, I will be more than happy to point yours out to you. I am sure you will be duly embarrassed since you like to point out whataboutism to everybody else. Liberals (And cocnservatives) are big time hypocrites. Liberals just don't see it in themselves.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 1:59 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
This wouldn't really be a Whataboutism, assuming our choices are just between Policy A and Policy B.
Sure it is. If I'm arguing that Trump's foreign policy in Syria is dangerous and a Trump supporters responds that Obama had a similar policy in order to support Trump - that's whataboutism. It's illegitimate because we are discussing the substance of the policy.
quote:
No, this is not legitimate. If Poster A starts a thread about Trump's taxes and Poster B responds with something about the Clinton Foundation, thats completely bogus.
Only if they are trying to defend the substance of the argument which would be fiscal relationships. But if the point is simply to point out that Poster A doesn't care about illicit fiscal relationships until the other side has them, then it is a legitimate means of discrediting Poster A. It's doesn't mean the substance is wrong; only that the Poster is selective in his outrage and unprincipled.
quote:
Even if Poster A doesn't have any credibity, that still doesn't change anything regarding Trump's taxes and by taking that road you're no better than the person you claim has no credibility.
I disagree. Pointing out hypocrisy is important because it harms credibility down the line. There is a reason why no sane person acknowledges Huffington Post or Info Wars - it's because they have developed a pattern of discredited reporting. It's the same with individual posters. Even though they may stumble on valid points from time to time, anything they put forth should be taken with a major grain of salt.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News