10-19-2022, 12:21 PM
(10-19-2022, 01:22 AM)Dill Wrote: Lol sure. That's what I've argued. We'll recall this the next time you accuse others of misrepresenting you position.
Forgive me if I've misinterpreted it, but if you think that one could not easily infer that based on your arguments on this subject you're delusional.
Quote:And I'm actually talking about Gabbard not Trump.
Quote: You said I've established "zero factual basis for [my] claims of [her] 'double standards' and 'logical inconsistency.'" It's all "subjective" and "my opinion."
So I asked you to confirm whether or not it's "factual" that Trump led a coup against the U.S. gov, weaponizing departments like the DoD and DoJ, and "factual" that Gabbard justified her party switch by publicly proclaiming the Dems were the dangerous "state weaponizing" party and warmongers to boot.
Or is it only my "opinion" that Trump and the GOP did what they did, and Gabbard said what she said?
Cuz if it's NOT just MY OPINION then there is a "solid factual basis" that Gabbard committed a massive logical and
factual inconsistency, an MTG-level inversion of reality, that cannot be erased by any "empathy" or "wisdom" I supposedly lack.
The question was about Gabbard, not Trump, as much as you might wish otherwise.
So the ball was back in your court. Subjective dill opinion or objective public facts?
Subjective Dill opinion. Repeated denials don't impress me, nor do repeated assertions of the same sort. Repetition does not generate truth.
Quote:But the "rational counterpoint" never comes. For, suddenly, after a passionate defense of Trump's supposed prescience regarding Ukraine
A "passionate defense"? Seriously? I'll recall this the next time you accuse others of misrepresenting you position.
Quote:and explaining away his love for bloody dictators, you are not on this thread to discuss him, and you are not going to "repeat" Gabbard's position--though no one asked you to.
Hahahaha, you're precious. Stating obvious reasons why he finds authoritarian leaders attractive is not "explaining away", it's explaining. This is the problem with extremists like yourself. You see any comment about an "enemy" to be an endorsement unless it's a full throated attack. This is why any conversation with you dissolves into circuitous tedium. You ignore what you can't refute and nitpick to death anything you can. These past two quotes from you more than adequately demonstrate you are not arguing in good faith. No logical person could view my statements and come to the conclusions that you just did.
Quote:She doesn't need "redemption" for having a different opinion about who's actually weaponizing some state, and even if Trump did launch a coup it doesn't mean people can't join his party or have to be in lockstep with single issue voters who defend democracy, and to even imply this wonderful woman could be unintelligent itself undercuts my argument. Somehow.
And yet you still have nothing but your subjective opinion on her intelligence. I'll reiterate, if you listen to her speak on any subject and then listen to Harris and come to the conclusion that Harris is more intelligent then you're outing your own lack of intelligence and nothing more. Sure, it's subjective, but sometimes subjectivity becomes obvious. If I ask who is the more beautiful woman, Margot Robbie or Rhea Perlman, I'm asking for your opinion on a subjective criteria. But if you pick Perlman I'm going to think you're either trolling, insane, an idiot or some mix of those three.
Quote:And you were speaking for everyone again. Wow.
No, just speaking for me. And I know I've said this before, but I'm done with this conversation. Your deliberate mislabeling of my arguments reminded me of why having any discussion with you is less than pleasant. I know you lack the self awareness to understand this and will just think I'm running away, but I guess I'll just have to live with that.
