0
- 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
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NOT THE POINT.
Uh...what?
quote:
Being willfully obtuse can work ... until it becomes obvious. Then it's simply sophomoric.
Don't get mad and start using ad homs because you don't like how your definition/argument is being tested.
quote:
The point is prejudiciously targeting an adversary as rationale for the charge,
We have added yet another definition to the list.
I hope you stop posting that image, now, because your current definition differs from that one.
This is how these conversations always go When the definitions people give are tested, they abandon their original definition and add more. Now you do this with even 3 or 4 people in a thread and the definitions start to wildly differ. Imagine doing that with 100, or 1000. That is my point.
quote:
not bringing a fairly wrought charge into an adversarial court proceeding.
And this is the attack on the legitimacy I always reference.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:31 am to Azkiger
No use arguing with SFPLC. He picks and chooses what he response to, and quickly looses interest on posts that hold his feet to the fire and doesn't let him distract. See my previous comment.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:32 am to Azkiger
quote:
No use arguing with SFPLC. He picks and chooses what he response to, and quickly looses interest on posts that hold his feet to the fire and doesn't let him distract.
What?
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Negative.
Again, we can get away from the term people are emotionally attached to in lawfare and use racism.
It's a nonsense word with many uses
"Racism" is not a "nonsense word."
Neither is a term like "Fascist."
People may misuse those terms as invectives, but that does not render the terms undefinable, undefined, or meaningless by default. On the other hand, if your insinuation here is that people/organizations such as Marc Elias, SPLC, the New York AG, etc. did/do not engage in the practice of lawfare, I don't know what to tell you.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Ad homs?
Don't get mad and start using ad homs
You mean accurate descriptions of your demonstrably irrational argument are ad hominems in your assessment?
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Either you don't understand the Miriam Webster definition as posted, or you don't understand the post you're responding to. In your case, I find either precept dubious. Hence, the earlier "willfully obtuse" assertion.
We have added yet another definition to the list.
I hope you stop posting that image, now, because your current definition differs from that one.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 7:54 am to NC_Tigah
Watch it. He’s gonna strawman you now.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:10 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
"Racism" is not a "nonsense word."
School milk is, you guessed it, racist.
....that's just from this month, mind you
quote:
People may misuse those terms as invectives,
If this is how you want to spin it, then we'll use this standard with "lawfare", too.
quote:
but that does not render the terms undefinable, undefined, or meaningless by default.
If there is a mass, collective mis-use of a word, then it renders the term meaningless.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:10 am to canyon
quote:
Watch it. He’s gonna strawman you now.
That would be a light ad hom, actually
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Either you don't understand the Miriam Webster definition as posted, or you don't understand the post you're responding to.
I understand both. They're not fully compatible and thus, are different definitions.
These discussions always go this way
1. Definition of "lawfare" given
2. It's tested among the cases
3. When the definition doesn't work, it's redefined
4. That new definition is tested among the cases
5. When the new definition doesn't work, it's redefined agfain
etc.
And this is with each person giving their definition and having it fail.
Every. Time.
Then people get so frustrated that their attempts to define it fail, they do what you did (some form of calling me "obtuse" or "contrarian")
Reb did the best job, ITT. He understands what's goign on, at the macro level
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:14 am to canyon
quote:If it comes, it comes.
He’s gonna strawman you now.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Couldn’t stand it could you? Used your favorite term that you throw around when you’re trying to be super intelligent. Lmao
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Make your argument
They're not fully compatible
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:17 am to canyon
quote:
Couldn’t stand it could you?
What's your problem with correctly calling out fallacies?
Just FWIW, that used to be standard practice on here.
In fact, back in the halcyon days, pre-MAGA, a poster on this very board suggested this very book to me, to become better at posting
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:18 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Make your argument
I did, in the post.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No. You made an assertion without backing it.
I did, in the post.
You claimed to understand the standard definition, and you claimed to understand my post. Then you claimed they are at variance. Make your case.
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:38 am to NC_Tigah
The 2 definitions don't include the "prejudiciously" or "targeting" the post to which I commented included, nor do they specifically require either/both "as rationale for the charge"
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:They don't have to.
The 2 definitions don't include the "prejudiciously" or "targeting" the post to which I commented included
quote:Correct. The issue is whether they preclude either/both "as rationale for the charge.
nor do they specifically require either/both "as rationale for the charge
Posted on 10/22/26 at 8:46 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You claimed to understand the standard definition, and you claimed to understand my post. Then you claimed they are at variance. Make your case.
Imagine him doing this in court. He would get destroyed
Page 12 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News