- 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
0
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:50 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
You don't see the similarities between two people repeatedly defying law enforcement both getting shot.
Similar yet completely different on the most fundamental level.
The differences are so strong that any attempt to equate the two makes you look like an idiot liberal with TDS.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:50 pm to 19
quote:
LMAO at every fig on this board is in here.
Dicktasters, everywhere.
Is that why you showed up?
Again, zero self-awareness.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:53 pm to Powerman
quote:This is one way to look at it.
That's usually what dumb people do
Or
People want to make sure they’re talking to/debating someone who is debating in good faith.
If someone has never once displayed concern for something that a Democrat has done, for example, and then gets all pissy when a Republican does something relatively similar, then we cannot debate.
I won’t waste my time on that shite.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:54 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Similar yet completely different on the most fundamental level.
In your eyes, because you are interpreting events to support your ideology.
Just like you interpreted the J6 killing to be UNjustified to support your ideology.
I don't expect you to see the pattern.
quote:
The differences are so strong that any attempt to equate the two makes you look like an idiot liberal with TDS.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:55 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
If someone has never once displayed concern for something that a Democrat has done, for example, and then gets all pissy when a Republican does something relatively similar, then we cannot debate.
How often have you criticized Republicans? Or do only non-Republicans have to pass this test?
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:56 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Crying Jordan. Nice meme you got there
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:56 pm to 4cubbies
Daily
Almsot daily here. Almost daily irl.
Pretty much daily.
Almsot daily here. Almost daily irl.
Pretty much daily.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:59 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I don't think it is ever acceptable for the President of the United States to lie or mischaracterize anything ever.
Hope this helps.
I never claimed it was.
1. I don't think this is "lying." Any more than I think if I posted a picture of some random homeless woman standing next to a guy on a bicycle* and said, "Hey everybody, look, it's Cubs!" it would be lying. It certainly wouldn't carry the moral and ethical weight your tone suggests you assign to this picture. Part of that is because of my next point, but part of it has to do with the fact that I wouldn't really expect anyone to take it seriously and actually believe that I went out and tracked you down, then stalked you until I could snap a picture standing next to a guy on a bicycle, then posted it on here. There would be no intent to deceive and no significant tangible gain to me from having done it.
Sidebar for a moment: When you go pedantic like this, this is when you invite whataboutisms. Because like hypotheticals, such as the one I just used above, whataboutisms are actually useful and allowed in formal debates (with rules and judges) to test consistency and logic. People seem to think they are inherently fallacious, and they're not.
Sidebar over—#2, Even if I granted that Trump did "lie" about or at least mischaracterize the arrest—which I can grant, that fits within the definition of "mischaracterize"—so what? My other statement is that one of the things being compared is a huge fricking deal and one of them is so insignificant probably few people outside this message board (or other boards like it) will ever even notice it or become aware of it. Certainly none of them will personally be affected by it.
So to sum up, I said two things (and neither of them was what you just posted).
1. You're being pedantic calling that "lying."
2. Even if I'm wrong about #1, it's still not a big deal, but someone else signing EOs into effect when it's likely that the person authorized to do so was unaware that they were doing it is a huge deal. That's why one of those things is illegal and the other isn't.
Hope that helps.
*I don't remember what the Cubbie's homeless lore is exactly, so forgive me if I messed that one up.
This post was edited on 1/23/26 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 1/23/26 at 2:59 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:02 pm to LSUTANGERINE
C'mon, it's just a little joshing
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:02 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
In your eyes, because you are interpreting events to support your ideology.
Wrong again. What Self defense is or is not has nothing to do with ideology. What college made you such an idiot?
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:02 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
In reality, it’s just more evidence that the White House administration lies frequently.
What specifically have they lied about?
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:03 pm to LSUTANGERINE
You’ve got him now! Blumpf is done!
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:05 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Sidebar for a moment: When you go pedantic like this, this is when you invite whataboutisms.
Do you realize my post was in response to YOUR whataboutism? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
quote:
Even if I granted that Trump did "lie" about or at least mischaracterize the arrest—which I can grant, that fits within the definition of "mischaracterize"—so what?
It demonstrates a lack of integrity, his embrace of propaganda and disrespect for the office which he holds along with the people he represents.
quote:
1. You're being pedantic calling that "lying."
I never called it "lying." You asked "what about this other thing that someone else did" and I responded that I don't think its ok for the POTUS to lie or mischaracterize anything ever.
You're just being hypocritical by calling it honest.
quote:
2. Even if I'm wrong about #1, it's still not a big deal, but someone else signing EOs into effect when it's likely that the person authorized to do so was unaware that they were doing it is a huge deal. That's why one of those things is illegal and the other isn't.
Noted.
This post was edited on 1/23/26 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:05 pm to wackatimesthree
It’s absolutely ridiculous that you had to type all of that to show why we aren’t “idiots” for or take on it.
Cubbies, power, what the frick guys..
Cubbies, power, what the frick guys..
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:07 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
I thought you guys were all about truth being whatever you feel it to be. I feel like that fat bitch was crying inside so I’m embracing it
We finally caught on to the meaning of "Truth"
It depends on the meaning of "Is". Bill Clinton. "I did not have Sex with that woman."
"The Border is closed". Biden
I've already visited 51 states,. Obama
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:08 pm to LSUROXS
quote:It's amazing how many people (progressive/leftists) don't realize one of Trump's purposes in life is to troll them. It aligns with their inability to meme.
Maybe they trollin.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:09 pm to Powerman
quote:
That's usually what dumb people do
Seldom right and wrong again.
"Whataboutism" was cleverly popularized by Democrats (and before that Soviets) to hide the obvious double standards that they have engaged in.
However, not all examples of "whataboutism" are fallacious. It's not actually fallacious in and of itself to say, "Well, you hold this standard in this case, why do you not hold the same standard in this other case over here?"
That's allowed in formal debates with rules and judges, just as hypotheticals are. They are both used to test consistency of viewpoint and logic.
Where it is fallacious is when someone says, "You're a dirty, rotten jerk." And instead of presenting a case for why you're not or successfully arguing against the claim, you simply say, "Well, so are you."
Or to slightly change the example and present it with a different fallacy attached, someone says, "Your position on XYZ is flawed because of 123," and you say, "Well, you're a dirty rotten jerk."
"Well, you hold this standard in this case, why do you not hold the same standard in this other case over here?" is not fallacious, and it's not being evasive, and it's not out of bounds in a formal debate. It's just testing logic and consistency.
Posted on 1/23/26 at 3:09 pm to djsdawg
quote:
What Self defense is or is not has nothing to do with ideology.
I give up.
You are being purposely obtuse. "Defending the ICE agent killing a civilian who was protesting the actions of St. Donald Trump while condemning Capitol Police killing a civilian who was protesting on behalf of St. Donald Trump has nothing to do with ideology."
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News