Trump's ethanol waivers are sparking rebellion in farm country

[Dill]

(09-02-2019, 06:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What would be the point with you?

Nope.  I, correctly, pointed out that his reaction is exactly what China wants.  Feel free to dispute this.

Dear god, just when one thinks you've reached the limit of your rampant egotism.  

Still with me?  Dispute what, exactly, that Dino's "reaction" is what China wants or that you "pointed out" it was?

1. Dino's policy views might or might not be "what China wants," but that doesn't automatically make them incorrect assessments of the current trade war. It would not, prima facie, make them bad.  In an open policy discussion, the first standard ought to be whether facts and inferences are accurate, not whether they are "what China wants."  I'm pretty sure China wants Americans to shame each other into bad policy decisions. Let's avoid that.

2. There are many ways to say that someone's actions are "what China wants." You could say "That policy would benefit China and hurt the US in the long run," for example. But instead you said Dino was "carrying water" for China and "supporting China," and a "dupe." Exemplar of Democratic "weakness." That is condescending and denigrating. You have done that sort of thing with many posters before, including me. I feel quite free to say that Dino is not a dupe and was doing none of those things.  You flipped him into "the enemy" and he was quite right to note that is part of a pattern, impulsive even.

As far as "what would be the point"--taking the hard, "wearying" road of eschewing personal attack and supporting statements with evidence would improve your arguments.  To borrow some of your evaluative vocabulary, appeals to "the obvious" are "weak," and not improved by claims that mysteriously silent others agree; evidence based arguments which draw no conclusions beyond what their premises allow are "strong" no matter who agrees with them.  Personal attack is "weak"--what people use instead of argument.

My rampant egoism has been pretty much constrained by these standards. However highly I might regard myself, I would never presume my claims true just because they are "obvious" to me, nor presume to call people dishonest, egotistical , or hypocrites or liars for not accepting them at face value. I would take whatever time necessary to explain them to any person of good will.