So we just went through the 2020 riots that claimed 30+ lives, children included, livelihoods utterly destroyed, reports of women raped in the CHAZ but due to cops not being able to get in could not do anything about it, and some poor dude was burned to a crisp in a property that was burned down. The democrat leaders and blue check marks continued to not only condone the unrest that resulted in such heinous acts but also told them to continue with the unrest that resulted in those crimes.
Nick Sandman, a kid that smiled while wearing a Maga hat had celebrities and all the blue check marks literally telling people not only to dox the kid but to physically harm the kid, nothing happened to them.
Kathy Griffin literally held a fake decapitated Trump head, a clear message, and nothing happened to her.
Let's not forget the fuckin' ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT in the early days who barely got any fucking punishment at all, and you're going to try and claim the wild shit about Trump's side being the fucked ones?
You won't do or say fuck all about that but I'm supposed to sit here and believe this bullshit idea that Trump called for what happened at Capitol Hill instead of simply alluding to protesting there? You literally have to pull that shit out of thin-air to make such assersions, meanwhile we have documented proof of Democrats ACTUALLY doing the shit you're claiming Trump did which cause far more suffering.
He said no such thing because he didn't want them to do such a thing.
Also, "evidence-free". Just stfu. There's no way that at this point you haven't seen the evidence brought forward to question the legitimacy of the vote count, which means you're blatantly lying.
Then you go on about some fuckin' spiel about authoritarianism from the position of supporting the establishment. My dude, right now they're doing everything they can to ensure that platforms can't be used for people with different opinions from the establishment, they're right now booting people off of platforms and trying to destroy the platforms those booted people flock to in order to still have any ability to take part in the dialogue. You're not the fuckin' good guys in this and the fact your dumbass can watch all this shit happen, watch the establishment that YOU support crack down on people to ensure they can't take part on the online dialogue so that THEY have control over the dialogue is fuckin' astounding.
So please shut the fuck up, my dude. I can deal with shitheads like you being wrong but to be so fuckin' pompous in the process, to think you're the underdog fighting for good while doing fucking EVERYTHING to fuck people over from the position of the establishment is astounding.
Don't think I won't notice you not responding to this either, shithead.
Haha. Wow. Boojum made a similar point to the one I made with you: You're not going to accept anything less than, "This is Trump. Make sure the cameras are rolling as I unquestionably incite an attack. I am encouraging you to break the law. I am committing impeachable offenses. I repeat, I am inciting an attack on the Capitol. I, Donald Trump, am the one inciting an attack."
To be honest, even then you'd probably claim it was CGI because you're a brainwashed cultist.
You're right. He's probably not going to respond because he's above you and likely long realized you're too stupid to actually be persuaded, which renders debates with you mere arguments. I'm getting pretty close to it myself. As you're unfazed by facts, the only real reason to engage with you is to fact-check your various false claims for the benefit of other potential readers.
Noticing a trend now. I've irked you. I like arguing and debating, this is a passtime for me, demonstrating why you're braindead is just a bonus.
Boojum made similar points to you which is why Boojum also dropped any attempt at responding to defend his position after I responded. It's why your replies are becoming more frequent yet has far less actual arguments in them because you're too prideful without the capability to justify that pride, which is why you can't demonstrate why I'm wrong and somehow think just saying I'm wrong is a step-up.
Yup. I'm not going to accept anything that any reasonable person can refute. Trump stated to do actions that run counter to violence and Rudy referenced a "trial by combat" in regards to legal battles. The reason why you're too much of a dumb dumb to realize that context matters and that you can't just claim someone's intent based on another party's later actions is because counter to what you think of me, it is actually you that is in a cult, which is why I can rationalize and refute your arguments AND call you a cultist while you can only do the latter with the pitiful cries of, "What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?! :'(". Language matters, shithead.
Nah, not CGI. I can explain it and I did, you're just too low-tier to realize I can watch the source of the quotes you're referencing and then explain that here where you have to either shut up and realize you're stupid or foolishly try to deny what I can literally link you to right here.
Ah, I getcha. He's not going to respond because he's better. How convenient. Almost as convenient as how you are trying so hard to argue the point here while trying to explain you don't have to argue the point so that you can just say "I'm right, you're wrong, Lalalalalalalalala". "It's not that I can't defend my position, it's that I'm better!"...Man, you weren't told to stfu enough as a kid, were you?
Please do feel free to not respond to me, like you did after I demonstrated that simply being able to link studies doesn't mean you know how to use them properly, ya dumbfuck. Haha. Anyway, feel free to ignore me. I didn't come to you looking to flex, it is you that came to me. You were so eager to pop in and tell me what's what, and now I've got you in a state of not even forming an argument and just trying to tell me I'm wrong. You came to me, and it looks like I've slapped you the fuck away from me.
Don't come back. It doesn't change, I can and will continue to demonstrate why you're a dumbfuck every single time you reply to me so do yourself the favor and don't respond to me, like you alluded to possibly doing.
Your frustration in dealing with my inured points is understandable, so naturally how appealing the thought of no longer having to is as transparent as it is.
You strike me as someone who could be punched and shout, "And don't come back or I'll headbutt your fist again! I totally kicked your ass!"
No matter how often your false assertions of having demonstrated something, they will never manifest so as to constitute reality.
Quite to the contrary, a great deal of your statements are demonstrably either a red herring, straw man, or ad hominem. The rest are just silly.
"Yup."
So your position is indeed that it's not possible to incite violence without directly specifying that it's what you're doing? One can't instill an emotion in someone else and indirectly manipulate them? If that's really your position then we can't really go any further regarding that point but it's clear to any reasonable person that it's just foolish and naive, abundantly so. You repeatedly claim we haven't defended our position but our position has been made clear and is defended by this sort of thing having been recorded in history: One can indirectly instigate a riot and it appears to us that it's what Trump did.
"What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?!"
I'll take it. Absolutely. If you don't think it's possible to less directly instigate things then frankly you're insanely naive.
As for CGI, I said that's what you'd claim /if/ Trump had directly asked for violence. Pay attention.
Since you brought up the studies here, I'll go ahead and respond to our other thread here and keep this all in one place. You claim I don't know how to use the studies I cited. Well, I do, but frankly even if I didn't, candidates more likely to know how to than either of us would be the scientists who conducted the studies and the researchers thereof, and I think their conclusion was rather clear, wasn't it? Tended to be the headline, huh? Stressing the minute consolation prizes for conservatives, which do exist, doesn't detract from the primary takeaway of the studies, which was, no matter how little you like it, that the higher a child's IQ is the more likely they are to lean left later in life. If you can't see that plain as day then you're in denial or it's in fact /you/ who can't use the studies. I've literally never seen anyone even attempt to pretend it's not the takeaway as if the sky wasn't blue, only to attempt to rationalize the reasons for the disparity in a less damaging way.
Again, yes, it's thought to primarily relate to social conservatism much more than economic conservatism, and no, that wasn't a detail I attempted to obscure as I presented this to you precisely /because/ you are socially conservative. None of this was ever about economics. I know tons of intelligent fiscal conservatives but have only met two highly intelligent social conservatives in my entire life. They're a horrible type of person as they can't even blame their behavior on their ignorance like most Trump supporters can.
1. You're the one contemplating not responding, not me. Nice try.
2. I guess you must be right. I must be a weakling unable to fight, I mean I couldn't possibly be not only smarter but stronger than you, that would just be absurd. Also, "Headbutt your face"? As opposed to headbutting their leg or something? Have you even been in a fight before with those Jackie Chan moves?
3. Blah, blah, blah, more vagaries about how I'm wrong without actually explaining how, blah, blah.
4. Again, blah blah, red herring, ad hom, no specific points of mine you're ascribing such fallacies to, blah, blah.
5. If someone has worked you up to do a very specific, non-criminal act and you then oppose what that person told you to do to then engage in criminal acts, then no, you cannot pin incitement to violence on such a person. Trump told them to do a specific thing and they deviated from that instruction.
6. Look up the definition of the word incitement. Yes, he has to specifically provoke them into unlawful behaviour. If you cannot quote him doing such then you cannot claim as such. You don't get to claim a fictional scenario is reality.
7. CGI. Omg. Why are you this dense to not realize?
8. Nope. I've responded to your studies in-full on the other thread. Go there and reply. You don't get to just ignore my entire response to your studies and then bring the topic back up as if you don't have rebuttals already waiting for you, which you ignored. Address my arguments there, I'm not typing a rebuttal up again for you to ignore just so you can bring the topic up later on and pretend the rebuttals you can't address don't already exist. They're waiting for you.
9. You had no idea who I was or my beliefs, you still don't. So for you to claim you brought those studies up specifically to apply them to me, a person who's views you don't even know, and claim that was the original purpose for you sharing those studies when we can just go back to the conversation to demonstrate how much bullshittery you're talking demonstrates that you're the lone fish in the barrel, bouncing about the place finding some way out of the dumbfuck barrel you landed yourself in.
Question.
Since you believe "working people up" is the same as inciting violence do you believe that any and all calls for protest towards sensitive topics that would evoke negative emotions from the listener as incitement to violence"? If not, why not?
Your claim: I tried to pass Rudy's quote off as Trump's.
Refutation: Here's a screenshot of me specifying that Rudy said it earlier in our exchange. I overestimated your ability to remember things and didn't think I had to hold your hand through the process every time I brought it up thereafter. https://ibb.co/4N2Jz7B
Your claim: I'm full of shit as I had no way and still have no way to know you are a social conservative.
Refutation: Have a screenshot of you describing your elegant views on transgender individuals as "fuck 'em". https://ibb.co/zfbp1P3
Your claim: I ignored your last response on the thread about the studies.
Refutation: Your assertions about more liberal countries in the comment I supposedly ignored were precisely what I referred to as "minute consolation prizes" in the grand scheme of things wherein the higher one's IQ as a child the further left one will typically lean later in life on average.
My claim: You have utilized the red herring.
You doing that: "Kathy Griffin literally held a fake decapitated Trump head, a clear message, and nothing happened to her."
My claim: You have utilized the ad hominem.
You doing that: "you're the lone fish in the barrel, bouncing about the place finding some way out of the dumbfuck barrel you landed yourself in."
My claim: You have utilized the straw man.
You doing that: "since you believe 'working people up' is the same as inciting violence"
Now to your question. That was a straw man, an attempt to substitute a more manageable opinion for my own. Of course I don't believe that as a blanket statement. The vernacular is a nuanced thing and you have to look at the details of each individual case. Let's say working people up is a rectangle. Aiming to manipulate them into committing violent and/or chaotic acts is a square. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
I'd say we could leave that point at I'm seeing more of a square and you're seeing more of rectangle, but funnily and insanely you seem to not be taking that route so much as claiming squares don't even exist. It's just not possible for you, subtlety can't exist, which is just naive.
I do like a tidy room but I'd suggest that "Your claim" and "Refutation" doesn't have a space inbetween, that way it's neater and more digestible.
1. I don't click links I'm not familiar with. The topic was Trump's words and you used a Rudy quote at a point where you tried to portray Trump as responsible for the things you listed. Even if you did reference it as Rudy elsewhere (for sake of argument I'll just accept this), it doesn't change that your comment came across as I described. (Refutation denied)
2. Your argument is that a singular topic can determine someone as a social conservative. You have the view that opposing any form of non-traditional position is how you determine social conservatism. Being opposed to certain change is not the same as being opposed to all change that deviates from tradition. It appears you are unaware of the very label you ascribed to me. (Refutation denied)
3. Ignored. I'm not having our original conversation here as it would mean you are free to ignore the points I made in the original feed. (Denied)
4. A red herring is when you use a piece of information to deviate from the topic with the intent being to mislead, an example is when you reference something or someone as a demonstration of your point, Kathy was used as the latter. I later address Boojum's position directly after using the example, which demonstrates no intent to distract from the original argument and therefor does not fit the definition of a red herring. (Refutation denied)
5. An ad hominem is when you attack the source and not their argument. I attack the source and their arguments. There's a difference between an ad hom and an insult. (Refutation denied)
6. You referenced Trump winding his rally up as a reason to claim he incited violence. Instead of answering the question you have entirely ignored it. I'll ask in a better way, then:
*Is it incitement to violence to rile someone/s up and then ask them to do a non-violent act at a specific location?*
7. You just claimed it's a strawman in #6 and then validated that yes, it can be considered incitement but not always, therefor it was a completely valid statement for me to make. This means that you think incitement to violence is an opinion based subject and not a legal based subject which means you are objectively wrong. (Refutation denied).
What did Trump say to incite his supporters to storm Capitol?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You're astounding, Boojum.
So we just went through the 2020 riots that claimed 30+ lives, children included, livelihoods utterly destroyed, reports of women raped in the CHAZ but due to cops not being able to get in could not do anything about it, and some poor dude was burned to a crisp in a property that was burned down. The democrat leaders and blue check marks continued to not only condone the unrest that resulted in such heinous acts but also told them to continue with the unrest that resulted in those crimes.
Nick Sandman, a kid that smiled while wearing a Maga hat had celebrities and all the blue check marks literally telling people not only to dox the kid but to physically harm the kid, nothing happened to them.
Kathy Griffin literally held a fake decapitated Trump head, a clear message, and nothing happened to her.
Let's not forget the fuckin' ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT in the early days who barely got any fucking punishment at all, and you're going to try and claim the wild shit about Trump's side being the fucked ones?
You won't do or say fuck all about that but I'm supposed to sit here and believe this bullshit idea that Trump called for what happened at Capitol Hill instead of simply alluding to protesting there? You literally have to pull that shit out of thin-air to make such assersions, meanwhile we have documented proof of Democrats ACTUALLY doing the shit you're claiming Trump did which cause far more suffering.
He said no such thing because he didn't want them to do such a thing.
Also, "evidence-free". Just stfu. There's no way that at this point you haven't seen the evidence brought forward to question the legitimacy of the vote count, which means you're blatantly lying.
Then you go on about some fuckin' spiel about authoritarianism from the position of supporting the establishment. My dude, right now they're doing everything they can to ensure that platforms can't be used for people with different opinions from the establishment, they're right now booting people off of platforms and trying to destroy the platforms those booted people flock to in order to still have any ability to take part in the dialogue. You're not the fuckin' good guys in this and the fact your dumbass can watch all this shit happen, watch the establishment that YOU support crack down on people to ensure they can't take part on the online dialogue so that THEY have control over the dialogue is fuckin' astounding.
So please shut the fuck up, my dude. I can deal with shitheads like you being wrong but to be so fuckin' pompous in the process, to think you're the underdog fighting for good while doing fucking EVERYTHING to fuck people over from the position of the establishment is astounding.
Don't think I won't notice you not responding to this either, shithead.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
SmokeEverything
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Haha. Wow. Boojum made a similar point to the one I made with you: You're not going to accept anything less than, "This is Trump. Make sure the cameras are rolling as I unquestionably incite an attack. I am encouraging you to break the law. I am committing impeachable offenses. I repeat, I am inciting an attack on the Capitol. I, Donald Trump, am the one inciting an attack."
To be honest, even then you'd probably claim it was CGI because you're a brainwashed cultist.
You're right. He's probably not going to respond because he's above you and likely long realized you're too stupid to actually be persuaded, which renders debates with you mere arguments. I'm getting pretty close to it myself. As you're unfazed by facts, the only real reason to engage with you is to fact-check your various false claims for the benefit of other potential readers.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Noticing a trend now. I've irked you. I like arguing and debating, this is a passtime for me, demonstrating why you're braindead is just a bonus.
Boojum made similar points to you which is why Boojum also dropped any attempt at responding to defend his position after I responded. It's why your replies are becoming more frequent yet has far less actual arguments in them because you're too prideful without the capability to justify that pride, which is why you can't demonstrate why I'm wrong and somehow think just saying I'm wrong is a step-up.
Yup. I'm not going to accept anything that any reasonable person can refute. Trump stated to do actions that run counter to violence and Rudy referenced a "trial by combat" in regards to legal battles. The reason why you're too much of a dumb dumb to realize that context matters and that you can't just claim someone's intent based on another party's later actions is because counter to what you think of me, it is actually you that is in a cult, which is why I can rationalize and refute your arguments AND call you a cultist while you can only do the latter with the pitiful cries of, "What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?! :'(". Language matters, shithead.
Nah, not CGI. I can explain it and I did, you're just too low-tier to realize I can watch the source of the quotes you're referencing and then explain that here where you have to either shut up and realize you're stupid or foolishly try to deny what I can literally link you to right here.
Ah, I getcha. He's not going to respond because he's better. How convenient. Almost as convenient as how you are trying so hard to argue the point here while trying to explain you don't have to argue the point so that you can just say "I'm right, you're wrong, Lalalalalalalalala". "It's not that I can't defend my position, it's that I'm better!"...Man, you weren't told to stfu enough as a kid, were you?
Please do feel free to not respond to me, like you did after I demonstrated that simply being able to link studies doesn't mean you know how to use them properly, ya dumbfuck. Haha. Anyway, feel free to ignore me. I didn't come to you looking to flex, it is you that came to me. You were so eager to pop in and tell me what's what, and now I've got you in a state of not even forming an argument and just trying to tell me I'm wrong. You came to me, and it looks like I've slapped you the fuck away from me.
Don't come back. It doesn't change, I can and will continue to demonstrate why you're a dumbfuck every single time you reply to me so do yourself the favor and don't respond to me, like you alluded to possibly doing.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your frustration in dealing with my inured points is understandable, so naturally how appealing the thought of no longer having to is as transparent as it is.
You strike me as someone who could be punched and shout, "And don't come back or I'll headbutt your fist again! I totally kicked your ass!"
No matter how often your false assertions of having demonstrated something, they will never manifest so as to constitute reality.
Quite to the contrary, a great deal of your statements are demonstrably either a red herring, straw man, or ad hominem. The rest are just silly.
"Yup."
So your position is indeed that it's not possible to incite violence without directly specifying that it's what you're doing? One can't instill an emotion in someone else and indirectly manipulate them? If that's really your position then we can't really go any further regarding that point but it's clear to any reasonable person that it's just foolish and naive, abundantly so. You repeatedly claim we haven't defended our position but our position has been made clear and is defended by this sort of thing having been recorded in history: One can indirectly instigate a riot and it appears to us that it's what Trump did.
"What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?!"
I'll take it. Absolutely. If you don't think it's possible to less directly instigate things then frankly you're insanely naive.
As for CGI, I said that's what you'd claim /if/ Trump had directly asked for violence. Pay attention.
Since you brought up the studies here, I'll go ahead and respond to our other thread here and keep this all in one place. You claim I don't know how to use the studies I cited. Well, I do, but frankly even if I didn't, candidates more likely to know how to than either of us would be the scientists who conducted the studies and the researchers thereof, and I think their conclusion was rather clear, wasn't it? Tended to be the headline, huh? Stressing the minute consolation prizes for conservatives, which do exist, doesn't detract from the primary takeaway of the studies, which was, no matter how little you like it, that the higher a child's IQ is the more likely they are to lean left later in life. If you can't see that plain as day then you're in denial or it's in fact /you/ who can't use the studies. I've literally never seen anyone even attempt to pretend it's not the takeaway as if the sky wasn't blue, only to attempt to rationalize the reasons for the disparity in a less damaging way.
Again, yes, it's thought to primarily relate to social conservatism much more than economic conservatism, and no, that wasn't a detail I attempted to obscure as I presented this to you precisely /because/ you are socially conservative. None of this was ever about economics. I know tons of intelligent fiscal conservatives but have only met two highly intelligent social conservatives in my entire life. They're a horrible type of person as they can't even blame their behavior on their ignorance like most Trump supporters can.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
1. You're the one contemplating not responding, not me. Nice try.
2. I guess you must be right. I must be a weakling unable to fight, I mean I couldn't possibly be not only smarter but stronger than you, that would just be absurd. Also, "Headbutt your face"? As opposed to headbutting their leg or something? Have you even been in a fight before with those Jackie Chan moves?
3. Blah, blah, blah, more vagaries about how I'm wrong without actually explaining how, blah, blah.
4. Again, blah blah, red herring, ad hom, no specific points of mine you're ascribing such fallacies to, blah, blah.
5. If someone has worked you up to do a very specific, non-criminal act and you then oppose what that person told you to do to then engage in criminal acts, then no, you cannot pin incitement to violence on such a person. Trump told them to do a specific thing and they deviated from that instruction.
6. Look up the definition of the word incitement. Yes, he has to specifically provoke them into unlawful behaviour. If you cannot quote him doing such then you cannot claim as such. You don't get to claim a fictional scenario is reality.
7. CGI. Omg. Why are you this dense to not realize?
8. Nope. I've responded to your studies in-full on the other thread. Go there and reply. You don't get to just ignore my entire response to your studies and then bring the topic back up as if you don't have rebuttals already waiting for you, which you ignored. Address my arguments there, I'm not typing a rebuttal up again for you to ignore just so you can bring the topic up later on and pretend the rebuttals you can't address don't already exist. They're waiting for you.
9. You had no idea who I was or my beliefs, you still don't. So for you to claim you brought those studies up specifically to apply them to me, a person who's views you don't even know, and claim that was the original purpose for you sharing those studies when we can just go back to the conversation to demonstrate how much bullshittery you're talking demonstrates that you're the lone fish in the barrel, bouncing about the place finding some way out of the dumbfuck barrel you landed yourself in.
Question.
Since you believe "working people up" is the same as inciting violence do you believe that any and all calls for protest towards sensitive topics that would evoke negative emotions from the listener as incitement to violence"? If not, why not?
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Your claim: I tried to pass Rudy's quote off as Trump's.
Refutation: Here's a screenshot of me specifying that Rudy said it earlier in our exchange. I overestimated your ability to remember things and didn't think I had to hold your hand through the process every time I brought it up thereafter. https://ibb.co/4N2Jz7B
Your claim: I'm full of shit as I had no way and still have no way to know you are a social conservative.
Refutation: Have a screenshot of you describing your elegant views on transgender individuals as "fuck 'em". https://ibb.co/zfbp1P3
Your claim: I ignored your last response on the thread about the studies.
Refutation: Your assertions about more liberal countries in the comment I supposedly ignored were precisely what I referred to as "minute consolation prizes" in the grand scheme of things wherein the higher one's IQ as a child the further left one will typically lean later in life on average.
My claim: You have utilized the red herring.
You doing that: "Kathy Griffin literally held a fake decapitated Trump head, a clear message, and nothing happened to her."
My claim: You have utilized the ad hominem.
You doing that: "you're the lone fish in the barrel, bouncing about the place finding some way out of the dumbfuck barrel you landed yourself in."
My claim: You have utilized the straw man.
You doing that: "since you believe 'working people up' is the same as inciting violence"
Now to your question. That was a straw man, an attempt to substitute a more manageable opinion for my own. Of course I don't believe that as a blanket statement. The vernacular is a nuanced thing and you have to look at the details of each individual case. Let's say working people up is a rectangle. Aiming to manipulate them into committing violent and/or chaotic acts is a square. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
I'd say we could leave that point at I'm seeing more of a square and you're seeing more of rectangle, but funnily and insanely you seem to not be taking that route so much as claiming squares don't even exist. It's just not possible for you, subtlety can't exist, which is just naive.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
I do like a tidy room but I'd suggest that "Your claim" and "Refutation" doesn't have a space inbetween, that way it's neater and more digestible.
1. I don't click links I'm not familiar with. The topic was Trump's words and you used a Rudy quote at a point where you tried to portray Trump as responsible for the things you listed. Even if you did reference it as Rudy elsewhere (for sake of argument I'll just accept this), it doesn't change that your comment came across as I described. (Refutation denied)
2. Your argument is that a singular topic can determine someone as a social conservative. You have the view that opposing any form of non-traditional position is how you determine social conservatism. Being opposed to certain change is not the same as being opposed to all change that deviates from tradition. It appears you are unaware of the very label you ascribed to me. (Refutation denied)
3. Ignored. I'm not having our original conversation here as it would mean you are free to ignore the points I made in the original feed. (Denied)
4. A red herring is when you use a piece of information to deviate from the topic with the intent being to mislead, an example is when you reference something or someone as a demonstration of your point, Kathy was used as the latter. I later address Boojum's position directly after using the example, which demonstrates no intent to distract from the original argument and therefor does not fit the definition of a red herring. (Refutation denied)
5. An ad hominem is when you attack the source and not their argument. I attack the source and their arguments. There's a difference between an ad hom and an insult. (Refutation denied)
6. You referenced Trump winding his rally up as a reason to claim he incited violence. Instead of answering the question you have entirely ignored it. I'll ask in a better way, then:
*Is it incitement to violence to rile someone/s up and then ask them to do a non-violent act at a specific location?*
7. You just claimed it's a strawman in #6 and then validated that yes, it can be considered incitement but not always, therefor it was a completely valid statement for me to make. This means that you think incitement to violence is an opinion based subject and not a legal based subject which means you are objectively wrong. (Refutation denied).
Easy. Next.
Im just dropping by to say how really truly sad it is that people still think either political party exists to help them.