Domestic Terrorism

[Dill]

(09-30-2017, 01:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh my, nice twist Twisty McTwisterson!    

I agree.  The dude who crushes another person's skull with a bike lock is though.

While I appreciate your hamfisted attempt at deflection I'll stick to the topic at hand.

It's not a claim, it's a fact.  I suppose I could have told a story about a muslim kid returning my wallet, that would likely hold more weight with you.

I'm not arguing for a federal law, as should have been obvious by my post supporting the superb #8 post in this thread.

Haha, you really just labeled your own post "superb"?  First off, that's sad to the point that I almost feel bad for you.  Second, I'd have to respectfully disagree with your opinion, but thanks for offering it.

Making a logical implication explicit is not a "twist" to anyone who understands the concept of logical implication. You cannot say (or imply) a bias against fascism is bad without implying either no bias against fascism or bias in favor of it is good. No "twisting" there at all. These implications are part of the logical structure of the original claim--i.e., logically necessary.

When I claim "deflection," I explain what is deflected and how. I don't JUST assert it.  You did equate ANTIFA to the KKK by claiming they attacked people who merely had a different opinion.  That was a support to YOUR argument. Questioning YOUR premise is not deflection.

You've still not offered any effective support to your claim the Mayor belongs to BAMN.  But you keep claiming it. In place of support, you reference my story about Muslims returning wallets.  A second time you have done that in place of substantive argument.  And all that after accusing me of deflection.  And you've still not conceded that cops hitting people with batons and arresting them is not cops "doing nothing."

You chose to feel "sad" that I employed a play on your own words, and then chose to share that feeling with us, rather than explain what specifically you find superb in Leonard's argument. Why spend time emoting rather than supporting any of your own claims?
Is it possible that you mistake sharing your feelings for an argument or a rebuttal of any point I have made here?

Can you respond to any of the points I made in this and previous posts by supporting your claims with evidence, including claims I "deflect" or "twist" some point you make? And keep all that focused on the original question I raised about the OP? One-line quips, vague sweeping references to others' arguments, and descriptions of your feelings will not do the job.