GMON

quote:

---

You know, their job is to prosecute those right?

---

Their job is to prosecute criminals but it's not Biden's job to say who is and who isn't criminal. If Biden did that, you're effectively saying it's okay for him to determine who is and isn't criminal. If you can't see how that's dangerous, I don't know what to tell you. Future leaders could build on that precedent and arrest their opponents.

quote:

---

He’s politically intervened already by calling committing crimes which support his agenda part of the process.

---

Biden didn't say that at all - he said that following someone into the bathroom was not appropriate. He said that [public protests] were part of the process, which I also agree with.

It's also not the same thing as directing the FBI to investigate which you seem to want him to do. The FBI has to make the decision to investigate on their own.

quote:

---

Or do you think it’s ok to commit crimes against people who oppose your agenda? Apparently you do.

---

No, I don't. But I think public protests are allowed. Going into a bathroom and protesting isn't a crime. It's not appropriate but it's not a crime either.

But apparently, you want a leader telling the FBI what to investigate and who to arrest.

quote:

---

Yet everytime there is a shooting you left wingers call for all gun owners to have their 2nd Amendment rights stripped. frick off twit

---

Do you not see the irony of generalizing all left-wingers within your own comment that's accusing left-wingers of generalizing others?

This is peak comedy. :rotflmao:

I try not to generalize anyone. I could say that all right-wingers are insane insurrectionists but I won't because I'm not someone who generalizes people. I'd like to think most right-wingers wouldn't attempt an insurrection.

quote:

---

So the government could mandate a pledge of allegiance to Zeus to get a license to have a small business and if you didn’t pledge allegiance to Zeus you were still free because you had a choice not to pledge to Zeus.

---

If you're going to use analogies, compare like for like.

Government mandating a pledge of allegiance to Zeus or getting tested for a disease that harms Zeus in order for you to work at a small business would be the equivalent analogy. Not all small businesses may offer testing but some do. Harming Zeus would harm all of society.

You are free to work at a small business that does allow testing for this disease. This is a choice you make.

You don't have to pledge allegiance to Zeus but you can choose to get tested, work at a place that allows testing, or choose to retire. The government isn't forcing you to pledge allegiance to Zeus when alternatives exist.

quote:

---

you called it public protest.

---

It is a public protest? Anything that happens in a public place makes it a public protest.

It doesn't mean all public protests are acceptable. I'll defend someone's right to do it but still think it's inappropriate (I can defend people who are racist for their right to do so but still condemn them and think it's inappropriate).

I don't think protesting in a bathroom is trespassing. I've been entirely consistent here.

quote:

---

Yeah. We already covered that. Whataboutism was the proper term.

---

I guess you could argue that I was committing whataboutism IF I hadn't also provided additional points.

quote:

---

You should re-read your posts.

---

I'm doing so. In every single comment, I've condemned it.

Let me repeat for the last time.

I think public protesting is a right -> protesting in a bathroom that is accessible to the public is still a public protest -> it's inappropriate but it's still a right -> I'll condemn it but defend someone's right to public protest in general.

Nothing I've said is contradictory. As in the racism example above, I think people have the right to be racist in public no matter how inappropriate I find it or condemn it. This is a similar situation.

quote:

---

We aren't talking about people that want roles. We are talking about people with established careers in those roles that will lose their ability to make a living. If you think a 60 year old surgeon is going to change careers on a dime... I'm going to laugh (more) at you.

---

Just because they won't, doesn't mean they can't.

A 60-year-old surgeon can work in a job where they can get tested.

This is still a choice. You've not made the leap here.

quote:

---

Whooooossshhhh.

---

Lmao. You've literally tried to say that it wasn't a choice and then listed out points that demonstrated it was a choice. You've now latched onto the idea that people *won't* want to leave their jobs - that doesn't mean they can't hence there's no disputing of the choice argument there.

But we're going to talk in circles at this point. I can predict the conversation from here - you bringing up more points that further demonstrate the choice aspect of this and me pointing that out. I think we've exhausted the discussion here.

:lol:

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.

quote:

---

Because in many cases it is not true.

---

Well, that's awfully easy to argue now. You've just demonstrated that it exists as an option and therefore IS a choice.

You realize that one can quit their job and work at a job where testing is allowed?

This is a choice.

quote:

---

Well if that ever becomes a universal option, you’ll have a fine point, sparky.

---

It doesn't have to be a universal option genius. As long as it remains an option, it's still a choice. People can choose to go to an employer where testing is an option - this is a choice. We choose to accept conditions of employment on a daily basis. If testing is an option in at least one work place, it's still an option and hence vaccines aren't a requirement.

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.

quote:

---

you should get out more.

---

So you can't get tested instead of getting vaccinated?

quote:

---

Not an equivalent. No one has to ingest things into their body for a drug test. If you’re going to equate peeing in a cup with taking an experimental vaccine we are going to laugh at you.

---

As I've said, you can get tested instead. Why do you keep sidestepping this?

Drug tests and COVID tests are equivalent. That is the equivalence I'm making here.

quote:

---

Liar. And even if he did.. two wrongs would not make it right. Can you make an argument without Trump?

---

Says the person who brought in Biden? Who else am I going to bring up when you brought up Biden in the first place?

Biden and Trump were opposing candidates so it only makes sense to bring up Trump in a conversation you instigated about Biden.

quote:

---

What is the acceptable number protestors acceptable to physically threaten a Senator?

---

None. I condemn them. What's your point here?

quote:

---

This isn’t e first time. Last time he dismissed it. Called it “part of the process”. Did the FBI start a massive investigation? Nope.

---

Because this isn't a crime that the FBI would investigate.

I'd leave it up to the FBI to decide what cases they can and can't investigate.

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.

Similarly, I think those protesting on January 6th have every right to protest outside of the capitol. It was only when they entered the capitol that I had an issue with it.

I'll defend the right for people to protest in public venues regardless of what political lean the protestors and person being protested have.