Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Thoughts on a Method of Political Rebuttal

YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 8:44:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
There are some in this forum, in a number of political camps, who, when confronted with the atrocities of their group (whether it's a political party, religion, country, or whatever), will then respond to those criticisms by identifying an opposing group (either a particular group that the criticizer is a member of, or another group) and identify alleged comparable atrocities.

Such refutation always takes the forum of "But we are no worse. Why are you outraged at us? Why are you not talking about them?"

This is, in addition to being monstrously idiotic, just not a refutation of the criticisms lodged at a group of any kind. The reason for that is this: whether a particular group's actions, or the group's members' actions are wrong/morally atrocious/inexcusable in any sense has NO BEARING AT ALL on those members' actions' congruence or difference with similar members of opposing groups.

There is no world in which that is a valid or meaningful response to criticism of a group, or the group's members. It's fallacious, stupid, inept and intellectually dishonest reasoning. Said less abstractly, if you employ this, then you are, in addition to being dishonest (mostly with yourself, because no reasonable person is persuaded by this), you are a dullard for utilizing this method of political rebuttal.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 8:51:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 8:44:21 PM, YYW wrote:
There are some in this forum, in a number of political camps, who, when confronted with the atrocities of their group (whether it's a political party, religion, country, or whatever), will then respond to those criticisms by identifying an opposing group (either a particular group that the criticizer is a member of, or another group) and identify alleged comparable atrocities.

Such refutation always takes the forum of "But we are no worse. Why are you outraged at us? Why are you not talking about them?"

This is, in addition to being monstrously idiotic, just not a refutation of the criticisms lodged at a group of any kind. The reason for that is this: whether a particular group's actions, or the group's members' actions are wrong/morally atrocious/inexcusable in any sense has NO BEARING AT ALL on those members' actions' congruence or difference with similar members of opposing groups.

There is no world in which that is a valid or meaningful response to criticism of a group, or the group's members. It's fallacious, stupid, inept and intellectually dishonest reasoning. Said less abstractly, if you employ this, then you are, in addition to being dishonest (mostly with yourself, because no reasonable person is persuaded by this), you are a dullard for utilizing this method of political rebuttal.

It's almost as bad as countering an atrocity with the statement,"It's the new norm."
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 9:10:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Oh thou OP, may we categorize ISIS militants in a bad light or is that profiling? Are all 30,000 terrorists? I most certainly do not want to hurt an "innocent ISIS militant's" feelings by idiotically declaring the group as a whole to be threatening. I wonder if the "innocent terrorists" feel betrayed by the "guilty terrorists'" actions, shedding a bad light on innocent terrorists who are terrorists nonetheless. I don't remember electing you Supreme Chancelor of what is "idiotic". Is it idiotic to assume that many germs can make you sick? Is it idiotic to generally rationalize that a 3 week oldpot of beans are unsafe to eat? I'm sure there is a safe 3 week old pot of beans somewhere that won't make you sick. Will my political incorrectness hurt its feelings? Here's the deal. Islamic terrorism accounts for over 90% of worldwide terroristic acts. To lookat the Quakers for terrorism would be "idiotic". Why? Because statistically, that is not where the terrorism comes from. To deny Islam is more dangerous statistically in the terroristic acts category is simply a lie, denial, and nievity. To tell the truth is not "idiotic". To be honest is not "idiotic". Radical extremist Islamfascists are a big threat. It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's basic discernment. If I see a bear in the woods, I assume he may try to kill me. Will every single bear try to kill me? Probably not, but it's common sense to keep your eye on it fully. If a rat terrier crosses my path, I will not be so cautious. Why? Because rat terriers are not known for killing people. Sure, technically there is a chance the rat terrier kills me, but paranoia towards rat terriers is ignorant. It's the same with Atheists vs. Muslims. Do Atheists ever commit terror acts? Sure, but its so exclusive that I'm not watching all Atheists and or Christians and Jews dilligently. Why? The rarity of terroristic attacks from these groups is minimal. There have been 30,000 terroristic acts by Muslims since 9/11. This is many, many times more than the rest of the world combined. That is simply discernment. That is our basic fight or flight instincts kicking in. We assess danger and this discernment is what has kept animals and humans in existance. We can discern threats, and it's not "bigotry" to use common sense. If it is I'll be the bigot with both arms and legs. Thank you.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 9:14:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 9:10:47 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Oh thou OP, may we categorize ISIS militants in a bad light or is that profiling? Are all 30,000 terrorists? I most certainly do not want to hurt an "innocent ISIS militant's" feelings by idiotically declaring the group as a whole to be threatening. I wonder if the "innocent terrorists" feel betrayed by the "guilty terrorists'" actions, shedding a bad light on innocent terrorists who are terrorists nonetheless. I don't remember electing you Supreme Chancelor of what is "idiotic". Is it idiotic to assume that many germs can make you sick? Is it idiotic to generally rationalize that a 3 week oldpot of beans are unsafe to eat? I'm sure there is a safe 3 week old pot of beans somewhere that won't make you sick. Will my political incorrectness hurt its feelings? Here's the deal. Islamic terrorism accounts for over 90% of worldwide terroristic acts. To lookat the Quakers for terrorism would be "idiotic". Why? Because statistically, that is not where the terrorism comes from. To deny Islam is more dangerous statistically in the terroristic acts category is simply a lie, denial, and nievity. To tell the truth is not "idiotic". To be honest is not "idiotic". Radical extremist Islamfascists are a big threat. It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's basic discernment. If I see a bear in the woods, I assume he may try to kill me. Will every single bear try to kill me? Probably not, but it's common sense to keep your eye on it fully. If a rat terrier crosses my path, I will not be so cautious. Why? Because rat terriers are not known for killing people. Sure, technically there is a chance the rat terrier kills me, but paranoia towards rat terriers is ignorant. It's the same with Atheists vs. Muslims. Do Atheists ever commit terror acts? Sure, but its so exclusive that I'm not watching all Atheists and or Christians and Jews dilligently. Why? The rarity of terroristic attacks from these groups is minimal. There have been 30,000 terroristic acts by Muslims since 9/11. This is many, many times more than the rest of the world combined. That is simply discernment. That is our basic fight or flight instincts kicking in. We assess danger and this discernment is what has kept animals and humans in existance. We can discern threats, and it's not "bigotry" to use common sense. If it is I'll be the bigot with both arms and legs. Thank you.

I don't think you read or understood what I said. In fact, I think you're probably on drugs or something, or you're just completely insane, because I can't think of any world in which any person fully in command of their senses would write something like you have in response to what I wrote. It's just totally non-responsive, and, frankly, very dumb. So, you're either a very dim person, or you're mad. I can't tell which, but I would at this point refer you to some sort of mental health professional, for that reason.
Tsar of DDO
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 9:31:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 9:14:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:10:47 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Oh thou OP, may we categorize ISIS militants in a bad light or is that profiling? Are all 30,000 terrorists? I most certainly do not want to hurt an "innocent ISIS militant's" feelings by idiotically declaring the group as a whole to be threatening. I wonder if the "innocent terrorists" feel betrayed by the "guilty terrorists'" actions, shedding a bad light on innocent terrorists who are terrorists nonetheless. I don't remember electing you Supreme Chancelor of what is "idiotic". Is it idiotic to assume that many germs can make you sick? Is it idiotic to generally rationalize that a 3 week oldpot of beans are unsafe to eat? I'm sure there is a safe 3 week old pot of beans somewhere that won't make you sick. Will my political incorrectness hurt its feelings? Here's the deal. Islamic terrorism accounts for over 90% of worldwide terroristic acts. To lookat the Quakers for terrorism would be "idiotic". Why? Because statistically, that is not where the terrorism comes from. To deny Islam is more dangerous statistically in the terroristic acts category is simply a lie, denial, and nievity. To tell the truth is not "idiotic". To be honest is not "idiotic". Radical extremist Islamfascists are a big threat. It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's basic discernment. If I see a bear in the woods, I assume he may try to kill me. Will every single bear try to kill me? Probably not, but it's common sense to keep your eye on it fully. If a rat terrier crosses my path, I will not be so cautious. Why? Because rat terriers are not known for killing people. Sure, technically there is a chance the rat terrier kills me, but paranoia towards rat terriers is ignorant. It's the same with Atheists vs. Muslims. Do Atheists ever commit terror acts? Sure, but its so exclusive that I'm not watching all Atheists and or Christians and Jews dilligently. Why? The rarity of terroristic attacks from these groups is minimal. There have been 30,000 terroristic acts by Muslims since 9/11. This is many, many times more than the rest of the world combined. That is simply discernment. That is our basic fight or flight instincts kicking in. We assess danger and this discernment is what has kept animals and humans in existance. We can discern threats, and it's not "bigotry" to use common sense. If it is I'll be the bigot with both arms and legs. Thank you.

I don't think you read or understood what I said. In fact, I think you're probably on drugs or something, or you're just completely insane, because I can't think of any world in which any person fully in command of their senses would write something like you have in response to what I wrote. It's just totally non-responsive, and, frankly, very dumb. So, you're either a very dim person, or you're mad. I can't tell which, but I would at this point refer you to some sort of mental health professional, for that reason.

My overuse of the word "idiotic" was in reference to mocking your overuse of it. I'll offer you something from psychology. People who use rhetoric like "dumb" and "idiotic" do it because they have low self esteem and ferl the need to break down others to feel more balanced about themselves. It is an overcompensation from a lacking in themselves.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:02:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 9:31:03 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:14:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:10:47 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Oh thou OP, may we categorize ISIS militants in a bad light or is that profiling? Are all 30,000 terrorists? I most certainly do not want to hurt an "innocent ISIS militant's" feelings by idiotically declaring the group as a whole to be threatening. I wonder if the "innocent terrorists" feel betrayed by the "guilty terrorists'" actions, shedding a bad light on innocent terrorists who are terrorists nonetheless. I don't remember electing you Supreme Chancelor of what is "idiotic". Is it idiotic to assume that many germs can make you sick? Is it idiotic to generally rationalize that a 3 week oldpot of beans are unsafe to eat? I'm sure there is a safe 3 week old pot of beans somewhere that won't make you sick. Will my political incorrectness hurt its feelings? Here's the deal. Islamic terrorism accounts for over 90% of worldwide terroristic acts. To lookat the Quakers for terrorism would be "idiotic". Why? Because statistically, that is not where the terrorism comes from. To deny Islam is more dangerous statistically in the terroristic acts category is simply a lie, denial, and nievity. To tell the truth is not "idiotic". To be honest is not "idiotic". Radical extremist Islamfascists are a big threat. It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's basic discernment. If I see a bear in the woods, I assume he may try to kill me. Will every single bear try to kill me? Probably not, but it's common sense to keep your eye on it fully. If a rat terrier crosses my path, I will not be so cautious. Why? Because rat terriers are not known for killing people. Sure, technically there is a chance the rat terrier kills me, but paranoia towards rat terriers is ignorant. It's the same with Atheists vs. Muslims. Do Atheists ever commit terror acts? Sure, but its so exclusive that I'm not watching all Atheists and or Christians and Jews dilligently. Why? The rarity of terroristic attacks from these groups is minimal. There have been 30,000 terroristic acts by Muslims since 9/11. This is many, many times more than the rest of the world combined. That is simply discernment. That is our basic fight or flight instincts kicking in. We assess danger and this discernment is what has kept animals and humans in existance. We can discern threats, and it's not "bigotry" to use common sense. If it is I'll be the bigot with both arms and legs. Thank you.

I don't think you read or understood what I said. In fact, I think you're probably on drugs or something, or you're just completely insane, because I can't think of any world in which any person fully in command of their senses would write something like you have in response to what I wrote. It's just totally non-responsive, and, frankly, very dumb. So, you're either a very dim person, or you're mad. I can't tell which, but I would at this point refer you to some sort of mental health professional, for that reason.

My overuse of the word "idiotic" was in reference to mocking your overuse of it. I'll offer you something from psychology. People who use rhetoric like "dumb" and "idiotic" do it because they have low self esteem and ferl the need to break down others to feel more balanced about themselves. It is an overcompensation from a lacking in themselves.

OMG... would you like to play a game of pop psychology?

https://pbs.twimg.com...
Tsar of DDO
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:07:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 10:02:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:31:03 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:14:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2015 9:10:47 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Oh thou OP, may we categorize ISIS militants in a bad light or is that profiling? Are all 30,000 terrorists? I most certainly do not want to hurt an "innocent ISIS militant's" feelings by idiotically declaring the group as a whole to be threatening. I wonder if the "innocent terrorists" feel betrayed by the "guilty terrorists'" actions, shedding a bad light on innocent terrorists who are terrorists nonetheless. I don't remember electing you Supreme Chancelor of what is "idiotic". Is it idiotic to assume that many germs can make you sick? Is it idiotic to generally rationalize that a 3 week oldpot of beans are unsafe to eat? I'm sure there is a safe 3 week old pot of beans somewhere that won't make you sick. Will my political incorrectness hurt its feelings? Here's the deal. Islamic terrorism accounts for over 90% of worldwide terroristic acts. To lookat the Quakers for terrorism would be "idiotic". Why? Because statistically, that is not where the terrorism comes from. To deny Islam is more dangerous statistically in the terroristic acts category is simply a lie, denial, and nievity. To tell the truth is not "idiotic". To be honest is not "idiotic". Radical extremist Islamfascists are a big threat. It has nothing to do with bigotry. It's basic discernment. If I see a bear in the woods, I assume he may try to kill me. Will every single bear try to kill me? Probably not, but it's common sense to keep your eye on it fully. If a rat terrier crosses my path, I will not be so cautious. Why? Because rat terriers are not known for killing people. Sure, technically there is a chance the rat terrier kills me, but paranoia towards rat terriers is ignorant. It's the same with Atheists vs. Muslims. Do Atheists ever commit terror acts? Sure, but its so exclusive that I'm not watching all Atheists and or Christians and Jews dilligently. Why? The rarity of terroristic attacks from these groups is minimal. There have been 30,000 terroristic acts by Muslims since 9/11. This is many, many times more than the rest of the world combined. That is simply discernment. That is our basic fight or flight instincts kicking in. We assess danger and this discernment is what has kept animals and humans in existance. We can discern threats, and it's not "bigotry" to use common sense. If it is I'll be the bigot with both arms and legs. Thank you.

I don't think you read or understood what I said. In fact, I think you're probably on drugs or something, or you're just completely insane, because I can't think of any world in which any person fully in command of their senses would write something like you have in response to what I wrote. It's just totally non-responsive, and, frankly, very dumb. So, you're either a very dim person, or you're mad. I can't tell which, but I would at this point refer you to some sort of mental health professional, for that reason.

My overuse of the word "idiotic" was in reference to mocking your overuse of it. I'll offer you something from psychology. People who use rhetoric like "dumb" and "idiotic" do it because they have low self esteem and ferl the need to break down others to feel more balanced about themselves. It is an overcompensation from a lacking in themselves.

OMG... would you like to play a game of pop psychology?

https://pbs.twimg.com...

Sure. Now the first step is to admit you have a problem. Go ahead.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:14:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 10:07:32 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
OMG... would you like to play a game of pop psychology?

https://pbs.twimg.com...

Sure. Now the first step is to admit you have a problem. Go ahead.

roflmao
Tsar of DDO
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 10:33:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/10/2015 10:14:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/10/2015 10:07:32 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
OMG... would you like to play a game of pop psychology?

https://pbs.twimg.com...

Sure. Now the first step is to admit you have a problem. Go ahead.

roflmao

Now come here and fight me because I'm bored.