Current Affairs The 2020 United States Presidential Election

[dead_soft]

Oh no, it was a lot more than that.

Roots are deep; you can trace quite easily the elevation of Trump back to Reagan without reaching too hard.

There's been failures, both Republican and Democrat, that led to the concerns BLM have, for example. You wouldn't just "blame Trump" for cops shooting black people; too simplistic.

Interesting sometimes it's these roots run deep, and sometimes it's a BLM protest lead to it.

Yes, some arguments are a bit too simplistic aren't they?

 

[Tubey]

Realise it sounded a bit ridiculous then?

No, it's called playing out a logical fallacy. I took his analogy and expressed it to the logical endpoint to show how it's not a viable answer to a problem.

 

[dead_soft]

Nope. Make them extinct by giving them no viable grounds to breed on.

Whereas you seem to think Nazis exist as they woke up one day and decided to become one for a laugh from what I can tell.

Never said that, you're doing that thing you do a lot which is to make something up and then argue against it to try and 'win' the argument.

 

[dead_soft]

No, it's called playing out a logical fallacy. I took his analogy and expressed it to the logical endpoint to show how it's not a viable answer to a problem.

But it wasn't the logical endpoint. It was what you think is the logical endpoint

 

[Tubey]

Interesting sometimes it's these roots run deep, and sometimes it's a BLM protest lead to it.

Yes, some arguments are a bit too simplistic aren't they?

They are if you don't read what I say, which is your modus operandi.

Once again you've taken offence to something not said.

To reiterate, BLM didn't cause the riots at the Capitol, but it's part of a chain of events that led to it.

 

[Tubey]

But it wasn't the logical endpoint. It was what you think is the logical endpoint

You're right. It's not like escalating levels of extremist governance ever led to a dictatorship. How silly of me.

 

[dead_soft]

You're right. It's not like escalating levels of extremist governance ever led to a dictatorship. How silly of me.

You created those escalating levels of extremist governance within your argument. No one has advocated extremist governance from Biden. They've just said don't appease fascists. It suits you to suggest this is extremist.

 

[Tubey]

You created those escalating levels of extremist governance within your argument. No one has advocated extremist governance from Biden. They've just said don't appease fascists. It suits you to suggest this is extremist.

No I took Riddicks example. Nothing else.

Learn to read, seriously.

 

[dead_soft]

They are if you don't read what I say, which is your modus operandi.

Once again you've taken offence to something not said.

To reiterate, BLM didn't cause the riots at the Capitol, but it's part of a chain of events that led to it.

I've not taken offence, I just think you're being quite ridiculous under the guise of being a sensible grown up.

To reiterate, you are focussed on BLM being integral to these riots when we'd already seen similar riots before BLM

 

[dead_soft]

No I took Riddicks example. Nothing else.

Learn to read, seriously.

Nope, he suggested potentially moving back to the middle rather than being a bit less far right.

Learn to read, seriously.

 

[Tubey]

I've not taken offence, I just think you're being quite ridiculous under the guise of being a sensible grown up.

To reiterate, you are focussed on BLM being integral to these riots when we'd already seen similar riots before BLM

No I wasn't. I said it was an event in a chain of events.

Again, read. I can't help but be blunt with you - you invent things.

 

[Tubey]

Nope, he suggested potentially moving back to the middle rather than being a bit less far right.

Learn to read, seriously.

Let's say Biden takes it to 0, or +7 over two terms.

Mad that. It's almost like I read what he said.

 

[dead_soft]

No I wasn't. I said it was an event in a chain of events.

Again, read. I can't help but be blunt with you - you invent things.

Bloody hell, it's just so silly. You patronise as if that makes you the grown up. I didn't invent anything.

'BLM protests were not "non-violent", and claiming they were allows things like the other day to happen with the proviso of "largely non-violent" too' - how is this not suggesting they were integral to the riots. You are saying it allows the other riots to happens.

It doesn't make you look the intelligence you think it does to patronise people when you start being unable to defend your position.

 

[dead_soft]

Mad that. It's almost like I read what he said.

But then completely mangled it for your own argument. He said 'Might as well turn off the lights and close the doors as a country at that point. If someone moves the needle from the middle to -7 and your great suggestion is to move it back to -5 because "feelings" it's doing a massive massive disservice to those who voted to get us at LEAST back to the middle.'
He didn't say anything about extremism.

 

[Tubey]

Bloody hell, it's just so silly. You patronise as if that makes you the grown up. I didn't invent anything.

'BLM protests were not "non-violent", and claiming they were allows things like the other day to happen with the proviso of "largely non-violent" too' - how is this not suggesting they were integral to the riots. You are saying it allows the other riots to happens.

It doesn't make you look the intelligence you think it does to patronise people when you start being unable to defend your position.

Yeah, go ahead and quote the full perhaps?

Spot on. Tried to explain this the other day.

Same with the tactic of saying "oh it wasn't us" when things go wrong. BLM protests were not "non-violent", and claiming they were allows things like the other day to happen with the proviso of "largely non-violent" too.

Thus there's no accountability. This, again, isn't false equivalency, as obviously one was grander in scale than the other, but as you say one sets the precedent for the other, and one antagonises the other.

There's no such thing as a "good" riot.

In reaction to this:

If you justify or make allowances for criminal activity for any protest, no matter how just the cause - you set a precedent.

The reason why is simple. The people protesting always believe their cause is just.

Criminal damage/assault etc no matter for what the cause is never acceptable and it shouldn't ever be excused, or allowances made.

See the bold bit? I used BLM as an example, not the be all end all of one leading to another - it's just one in a chain of events. But again

Also, "doesn't make you look the intelligence" isn't very intelligent.