"Diversity is not our strength": Cincy's own Ramaswamy 2024!

[Dill]

(08-10-2023, 11:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill: No one can determine for certain that no vet was EVER spat upon on returning home--over 2 million returned--but one can determine whether it was a "common experience" as SSF puts it. Just as one can determine whether pro-war demonstrators more commonly attacked anti-war demonstrators--which often included vets.

I never said it was a "common experience", so your putting it in quotes is a flat out lie.  I also want to thank you for the insight into your character that was that post.  You've always been disingenuous, and is this case are flat out lying about what I said, but your attempts to invalidate the lived experiences of some of the men returning home from Vietnam is just flat out odious.  You also gave us a very interesting look into how something like holocaust denial starts.  I suppose when all of the poor men who had the experience under discussion have passed on more people like you can claim they lied about what happened to them and label it a myth.

That post really revealed a lot about your character, and not a bit of it was good.

LOL "Us" again.  Your quote below, from post #60, was the occasion for my use of your term "common experience."  

"As SSF puts it," followed ONLY by the two words singled out, just means that I am appropriating your TERM as I state one can determine WHETHER spitting was a common experience. I did not say "as SSF claims" it is, as I would have if that is what I meant. And even if I had, the appropriate response would have been a simple, "No that's not what I'm saying," rather than stridently accusing me of lying and linking me, by misconstructed analogy, to Holocaust denial.*  That sort of hyper-emotional and unjustified personal attack, while you are revealing MY character, shuts down threads as well as debate.

In any case, based on the case I've referred to in previous posts--books and polls of vets and documentary evidence from the period--being spit on was not a common experience. Not even close. So why are you "avoiding my points," as you frequently put it? 

(08-10-2023, 12:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:That doesn't take away for anyone's own experiences.  It just says there is more than a black and white view of it.

No, Dill is arguing that it never happened.  I allow for it not being the common experience, he does not.  Who do you agree with?

The flipside now--Dill has not been "arguing that it never happened." And you just responded to a post which states that plainly. 

So why isn't the misrepresentation bolded above a "flat out lie," as you put it? 

My posts are not about "invalidating the experiences of some of the men returning home from Vietnam"; 
They are about invalidating the MYTH that this was a common and representative experience. 

And I've given the reasons why so many Vietnam Vets agree with me on this point--it's really THEIR argument, after all--e.g. it deflects criticism FROM the people and policies who created the Vietnam mess and deflects it TO the people who criticized that war and will likely be criticizing future wars as well. But you are not interested in THAT evidence. It's "anecdotal" coming from vets whose experiences you don't mind invalidating to keep your private grievances against "the left" going.

You cannot refute that argument, so you once again make it personal, framing the issue as "personal invalidation," ignoring that I specifically acknowledged how a vet who actually was spit on might feel. You claim to put forward your father's testimony, then make any further contextualization of it a personal insult to him if it does not support your narrative. That closes any further possibility of open discussion and assessment of the factual record of this issue in veteran history, but leaves you in your preferred position of strident, personal moral condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. Not the first time. 

I'm not going to trade accusations of "ingenuousness" with you. And you are not going to respond to my evidence-based argument as an evidence-based argument. So "we" probably don't require any further revelation of my character. 

*Holocaust denial does not start with people trying to verify historical facts, but with denying facts to create an alternative history based emotional appeal and predetermined political goals, not the historical record. Have you even bothered actually reading such denials? Have you forgotten your recent complaint about people who argue by linking opponents to the worst people? Why do you always except yourself from the rules you want others to follow?