- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Evil twats crash a wedding because Kyrsten Sinema was invited to it
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:32 am to GMON
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:32 am to GMON
quote:
What exactly is your point here?
Biden can say whatever he wants but action speaks louder than words.
In one instance you have a coordinated effort with the FBI and several other layers of federal agencies to identify and round up people using social media, doxing, and facial recognition.
On the other hand there is virtually zero effort to find anyone involved with the burning and looting of multiple cities in 2020.
0
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:33 am to GMON
quote:No, he called being accosted and FILMED in a bathroom part of the process.
Biden called being publically protested part of the process. I don't think protesting public figures is illegal except in locations where it is forbidden for said protestors to go. A private wedding is clearly a forbidden place, other venues of protest aren't.
For the uninformed (which is you) that is the President of the United States endorsing the commission of a crime with the full knowledge it was a crime AFTER it had been committed.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:34 am to GMON
I truly feel sorry for you. You have the intellect of a 5 year old child. You probably think Biden is doing a great job...of course you do. Bless your little insecure heart.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:35 am to Vandergriff
He’s just another alter recycling back through the board.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:42 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
But It didn’t use Biden as an et tu fallacy to make my point .
I already explained that. Biden was defending the right to political protest, which is a part of the process.
Pointing out the difference between two events does not make it an et tu fallacy - I'm not arguing that Trump and Biden did equally bad things. I'm saying Trump did something and Biden didn't do it, which makes the events different. Otherwise, everyone bringing up Trump and Biden in the same conversation would be committing an et tu fallacy.
My point:
quote:
Biden hasn't encouraged it nor did he tell those people to crash a wedding. Trump practically encouraged the capitol protests and subsequent storming of the capitol.
Pointing out the difference between two events does not make it an 'et tu' fallacy. If you had brought up Biden and I had instead said that Trump was equally as guilty, that would be an et tu fallacy. I made it clear that Biden and Trump behaved differently which is not an 'et tu' fallacy.
There's no 'tu' in this argument. I was pointing out the difference in the two situations.
quote:
You could have actually addressed the point that the Left enables and subjugates this behavior when their supporters are the ones doing the harassing. But we both know there is no defense for that.
Biden said that political protests are a part of the process.
He condemned the protestors for following Sinema into the bathroom.
LINK
quote:
You wanted to play numbers games. I asked you what the acceptable number was. Can you read?
There's no acceptable number, which is why Biden has condemned actions like it.
LINK
quote:
Other than trespassing.
A crime the FBI investigates?
quote:
Beig accosted in a bathroom or a wedding is not in the public.
Which is why Biden has condemned it.
LINK
I'm not sure why you're ignoring this.
quote:
Except thst isn’t what you’re actually defending.
Except it is? I'm okay with protestors going into public venues and protesting.
Biden has condemned people who go into bathrooms and weddings so I'm not sure what else we would be arguing. Nice try.
This post was edited on 10/30/21 at 2:52 am
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:44 am to llfshoals
quote:
For the uninformed (which is you) that is the President of the United States endorsing the commission of a crime with the full knowledge it was a crime AFTER it had been committed.
LINK
No, he didn't.
He clearly implied that protesting was part of the process, not that being accosted and filmed in a bathroom was part of the process.
quote:
that is the President of the United States endorsing the commission of a crime with the full knowledge it was a crime AFTER it had been committed.
Oh please.
He clearly said it wasn't appropriate.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:53 am to GMON
quote:I'm aware. But unfortunately repetition won't rehabilitate it.
I already explained that.
quote:
I'm not arguing that Trump and Biden did equally bad things. I'm saying Trump did something and Biden didn't do it, which makes the events different.
You literally make the "he did it first!" argument. Then you repeated it again. It is what it is. quote:
Biden said that political protests are a part of the process.
He wasn't sepaking about a hypothetical at that point. The fact that you think Trump ordered protesters to storm the Capitol, and think Biden was talking about some generic hypothetical is telling. You're not really worth anyone's time. quote:Than why did you dismiss this harrassment with "I think it's pretty much negligible. There are weirdos of a similar percentage in any party."?
There's no acceptable number
quote:Literally, yes!
A crime the FBI investigates?
quote:I'm not. I've told you above why you are wrong.
I'm not sure why you're ignoring this.
quote:My years of working as a newspaper photographer tell me... bathrooms and private wedding venues are not public places.
Except it is?
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:58 am to GMON
quote:
et tu fallacy.
You might be thinking of tu quoque fallacy.
Your mom certainly is thinking of tu quoques.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 2:59 am to the808bass
quote:
He’s just another alter recycling back through the board
Has a familiar style. Maybe lankiestlawyer?
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:00 am to the808bass
quote:I think I was the one that screwed that up. But the point stands. Trump wasn't part of this conversation until he tried to use it as deflection.
You might be thinking of tu quoque fallacy.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:01 am to TrueTiger
Yeah. I looked for someone who made the mistake of “et tu” fallacy before. Came up blank.
It could be Rex. He won’t last long if it is.
It could be Rex. He won’t last long if it is.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:02 am to Taxing Authority
Ah. Got it.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:04 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You literally make the "he did it first!" argument. Then you repeated it again. It is what it is.
No, I didn't.
There's no 'he did it first'. That's where it would be an 'et tu' fallacy.
I'm saying that Biden didn't do it at all. That's not an et tu fallacy - you do understand that, right? Pointing out the difference in the way two candidates behaved is not an et tu fallacy, saying that they both did bad things would be.
quote:
The fact that you think Trump ordered protesters to storm the Capitol, and think Biden was talking about some generic hypothetical is telling. You're not really worth anyone's time.
Good argument there. Lot of great points...
We can debate what one thinks or what doesn't think. But Biden did say that the bathroom protests were not appropriate - that's in writing.
quote:
Than why did you dismiss this harrassment with "I think it's pretty much negligible. There are weirdos of a similar percentage in any party."?
Did I dismiss the harassment?! I was arguing with the user on the distribution of weirdos within a party. As a percentage, it's negligible for any party.
quote:
I'm not. I've told you above why you are wrong.
No, you haven't. You've not demonstrated how 'Biden saying bathroom protests were not appropriate' is not condemning it? There's no points being made - you've just said 'you're wrong' and that's the extent of your point.
quote:
He wasn't sepaking about a hypothetical at that point
Uh, fairly sure it was. He condemned the specific situation but said political protests were part of the protest. That's going from specific -> generic approval of protesting.
quote:
Literally, yes!
Which is why they're investigating it? Trespassing isn't always investigated by the FBI. Going into a public bathroom isn't trespassing even if it's not appropriate.
The FBI doesn't investigate all incidences of trespassing. You have to make the case that they do, which you're not really doing.
quote:
bathrooms and private wedding venues are not public places.
Bathrooms are accessible to the public, hence they're public places.
Private wedding venues are not open to the public, hence they're not public places. This would be trespassing but you'd have to make the case that the FBI would investigate it over local police.
Both can be inappropriate places to protest but that doesn't mean both are examples of trespassing.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:06 am to GMON
quote:
As a percentage, it's negligible for any party.
You’re wicked stupid.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:12 am to GMON
quote:I used the wrong term. See above. None-the-less you used it as a deflection. You did not defend the orignal action.
Pointing out the difference in the way two candidates behaved is not an et tu fallacy, saying that they both did bad things would be.
quote:And he dismissed it immediately after - that is also in writing.
But Biden did say that the bathroom protests were not appropriate - that's in writing
quote:Literally quoted it for you.
Did I dismiss the harassment?
quote:Sorry. Read your own links. I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.
No, you haven't. You've not demonstrated how 'Biden saying bathroom protests were not appropriate' is not condemning it?
quote:Yeah. No one claimed that.
The FBI doesn't investigate all incidences of trespassing.
quote:
Bathrooms are accessible to the public, hence they're public places.
Da fuq? You're going to tell me there is no expectation of privacy in a bathroom? GTFO. quote:Well there is some progress...
Private wedding venues are not open to the public, hence they're not public places.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:13 am to GMON
quote:
More than one group can have culpability? It's not an exclusionary attribution.
But you blamed it entirely on Trump. Even after it has been proven that there was no coordination what so ever. Yet you persist in spreading that junk. I bet you believe the "fine people" hoax too. And that "the police acted stupidly" hoax from the Obama admin too, huh?
The only thing that is caused people to walk into the capitol was the fact that capitol police let people into the capitol.
quote:
Well, he was understood enough to win an election.... sorry, that was mean but I wouldn't feel bad for a guy who became President of the US.
Bless your heart! You think Biden won? LOL A delusional tyrant.
Leftist, tyrants, and dictators. They all have one thing in common, folks. They believe that the ends always justify the means. Even if the means are illegal, immoral, or just tasteless. This is how come they find it perfectly acceptable to crash a wedding because someone they don't like is attending it.
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:15 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
used the wrong term.
no biggie, it's just a form of
whataboutism
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:19 am to TrueTiger
quote:THANK YOU KIND SIR!!
no biggie, it's just a form of
whataboutism
It's been a long night running model results... This post was edited on 10/30/21 at 3:24 am
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:30 am to GMON
quote:
Me walking into a public bathroom and shouting at someone who I had seen go in there IS inappropriate. But that's not trespassing.
you called it public protest. quote:Yeah. We already covered that. Whataboutism was the proper term.
And it's not a 'tu quoque' fallacy either.
quote:You should re-read your posts.
I'm fairly sure I've condemned it.
quote:I know you think this. But you're still wrong.
He was talking about political protests in general and how every public figure has to face protests.
quote:And that appears to be true.
But you claimed that the FBI wasn't investigating this and they were investigating the capitol events.
quote:I don't. But clearly there are multiple standards. The DOJ is getting involved with parents speaking at school board meetings. Harassing a Senator you're unhappy with... apparently warrants no action. I'm not going to spend any more time pointing out the myraid of examples here. They're painfully obvious to anyone with an objective observation.
Why would you expect both to be investigated when the FBI doesn't investigate everything?
Posted on 10/30/21 at 3:36 am to GMON
quote:Did he direct the FBI to prosecute them?
Oh please.
He clearly said it wasn't appropriate.
No? Guess he does think it’s appropriate after all.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News