@[email protected] to Political [email protected] • 6 months agoHow dare you...lemmy.worldimagemessage-square209fedilinkarrow-up11.83K
arrow-up11.83KimageHow dare you...lemmy.world@[email protected] to Political [email protected] • 6 months agomessage-square209fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink7•6 months agoIt’s called a strawman to build an argument that was never made and then attack it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•6 months agoYou didn’t make this absurd claim?: If something affects both sides it’s effectively “a wash” and cancel each other out. If you are victimized, you believe you then have the right to also victimize “to cancel it out”?
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink3•6 months agoContext is important, that’s how we continue the conversation. If Candidate A is a genocidal maniac, and Candidate B is a genocidal maniac. It’s effectively a wash and pointless to say “well Candidate A supports genocide!” Hope this clarified my meaning.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•6 months ago Criticizing genocide is pointless if both major candidates support it. Apathy has paved a basis for genocide throughout history, your view is not novel nor beneficial.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•6 months agoGrandoise words that mean little and contribute nothing but obviously you love the smell of your own facts so go off. Whatever helps you sleep at night
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•6 months agoOh I know lots of defintions. It’s especially useful sniffing out self important jackasses who love to read their own words.
minus-squarePsychadelligoatlinkfedilinkEnglish1•6 months ago an argument that was never made It says 0 scandals right there in the post Just because the other guy also has scandals doesn’t mean she has 0
It’s called a strawman to build an argument that was never made and then attack it.
You didn’t make this absurd claim?:
If you are victimized, you believe you then have the right to also victimize “to cancel it out”?
Context is important, that’s how we continue the conversation.
If Candidate A is a genocidal maniac, and Candidate B is a genocidal maniac. It’s effectively a wash and pointless to say “well Candidate A supports genocide!”
Hope this clarified my meaning.
Apathy has paved a basis for genocide throughout history, your view is not novel nor beneficial.
Grandoise words that mean little and contribute nothing but obviously you love the smell of your own facts so go off.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Apathy was too big of a word for you??
Oh I know lots of defintions. It’s especially useful sniffing out self important jackasses who love to read their own words.
Ok
It says 0 scandals right there in the post
Just because the other guy also has scandals doesn’t mean she has 0