This is way too reductive, insulting, and patronizing to be a valid argument. Yes, there are hurdles, but hurdles can and should be overcome. The future of the nation depends on it. And you cannot seriously continue to intimidate everyone else to kowtowing to a bunch of bullying racists simply because they have weapons, which most Americans can easily procure.
If you’re not willing to respect anyone else, no one else should respect you.
Well, that’s one way to tell us you can’t make a solid point without attacking the person or violating civility. Your attitude will cause the very violence you seek to prevent. You can’t claim that debate would be effective at solving the problem or even possible if you can’t even treat people with respect on Lemmy.
It’s not really, it’s pretty weak, and we can tell from the way he speaks of (people he views as) his opponents. If it was strong, he wouldn’t have to call names or insult those he’s seeking to convince, or try to bully them. I’ve seen that sort of thing many many times in my life. Honestly, people should treat his and the arguments of anyone who resorts to ad hom and abusive behavior as sus.
You don’t have to like his argument, but from his perspective, it is what he says. Rather than whine about it, try deconstructing his argument and countering it with facts.
It hardly matters how we feel about his argument. We dislike his behaviour, and it’s obvious that he’s disguising a really poor attempt at intimidating people into compliance through insult, ad-homs, and a domineering attitude.
People who are correct don’t do that. Ergo, we can dismiss him off-hand. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the basic premises of logical debate, rendering any debate meaningless.
It sounds like you want an echo chamber where you never see opposing views or you just want Masters level political discussion which you won’t find online, ever.
I think you just agree with the other guy and you can’t really come up with a good reason why.
You understand we don’t have to just comply with you, right? The rest of us have integrity and self-respect, and we won’t invest time and effort arguing with people like him who are clearly not going to listen, who clearly have an agenda, and clearly have no respect for others.
Removed by mod
This is way too reductive, insulting, and patronizing to be a valid argument. Yes, there are hurdles, but hurdles can and should be overcome. The future of the nation depends on it. And you cannot seriously continue to intimidate everyone else to kowtowing to a bunch of bullying racists simply because they have weapons, which most Americans can easily procure.
If you’re not willing to respect anyone else, no one else should respect you.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Well, that’s one way to tell us you can’t make a solid point without attacking the person or violating civility. Your attitude will cause the very violence you seek to prevent. You can’t claim that debate would be effective at solving the problem or even possible if you can’t even treat people with respect on Lemmy.
It’s a valid argument.
It’s not really, it’s pretty weak, and we can tell from the way he speaks of (people he views as) his opponents. If it was strong, he wouldn’t have to call names or insult those he’s seeking to convince, or try to bully them. I’ve seen that sort of thing many many times in my life. Honestly, people should treat his and the arguments of anyone who resorts to ad hom and abusive behavior as sus.
You don’t have to like his argument, but from his perspective, it is what he says. Rather than whine about it, try deconstructing his argument and countering it with facts.
It hardly matters how we feel about his argument. We dislike his behaviour, and it’s obvious that he’s disguising a really poor attempt at intimidating people into compliance through insult, ad-homs, and a domineering attitude.
People who are correct don’t do that. Ergo, we can dismiss him off-hand. If you disagree with that, you disagree with the basic premises of logical debate, rendering any debate meaningless.
It sounds like you want an echo chamber where you never see opposing views or you just want Masters level political discussion which you won’t find online, ever.
I think you just agree with the other guy and you can’t really come up with a good reason why.
You understand we don’t have to just comply with you, right? The rest of us have integrity and self-respect, and we won’t invest time and effort arguing with people like him who are clearly not going to listen, who clearly have an agenda, and clearly have no respect for others.
So yes, you want an echo chamber. Thanks for clarifying that.