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

[Dill]

(08-11-2023, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In summation, you are being dishonest in the extreme here.  You not only lied about what you claimed you didn't lie about, but you lied about claiming my father and his friends are liars.  In short you have absolutely zero credibility.  You'll probably report this as a personal attack, but I don't believe that pointing out when someone is obviously being dishonest, using their own words to illustrate that, is a personal attack.  Unless you want to claim you've been personally attacking Trump about the 2020 elections instead of justifiably calling out his falsehoods.  And apologies to the mods, but someone claiming my father, who spent two years plus in that war, and his friends are lying about their experiences is just not something I'm going to tolerate.  If you think this is too much, then I sincerely apologize, but I would ask you to honestly read this post and then tell me what I'm claiming is false.  

If you put your recollection of something your father said out there as "proof" of some political or historical thesis, then it is just another bit of data and fair game for questioning. Don't expect to squelch debate over a topic you find uncomfortable by thereafter accusing people of attacking your father if they disagree with your take on that topic. In any case, it is not your father's credibility on the line here but yours. And in a free and open forum, you do have to "tolerate" others' opinions. If this issue makes you so emotional, perhaps you should drop it, and in the future refrain from leveraging beloved family members into political/historical arguments.

I certainly have no objection to juxtaposing quotations to demonstrate conflicts or contradictions between a poster's statements. I do that to you all the time, right? But then I let the juxtaposition speak for itself. I don't call fellow posters "blatant liars" or "hypocrites," even if on occasion I think they are. I also allow that people make mistakes and may reword badly worded points. Good faith in philosophical debate/argument means trying to understand the other guy's reasoning first.  If you are going to call me a "blatant liar," then "methinks" you ought to at least clearly represent MY argument--what I think it is--not your angry reaction to disjointed statements, some not even mine. 

You create a straw man when you substitute your own definition of "myth" for the one my source uses, and present a statement drawn from him as simply my own. And also when you ignore statements which don't fit your misconstruction, like "No one is willing to say 'no soldier was ever spit on,'" and "No one can determine for certain that no vet was EVER spat upon on returning home." 

In short, I'm willing to continue rational discussion of the question of whether vets were commonly spit on and, more importantly, the current political uses of that claim. That's a conversation that could encourage interest and participation of others.

But I'm not willing to argue over whether your father is "a liar," as that's no discussion at all, and unlikely to interest others.  

Ball's in your court.