Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 07, 2018, 11:55:59 amQuote from: gogators! on September 07, 2018, 11:04:06 amQuote from: Chester Jim on September 07, 2018, 10:45:18 amIs it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling. Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported.This is exactly what you do, Steel Rails, Martin, DMT, whoever you are …See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing. So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it. Eventually.Flash forward to the waygook.org era (I don't--never did--engage on Dave's) and you've found that the thing to do when you are wrong--for sure, not always--is to subtly change the point of debate. If someone is talking about Israel, bring up Syria. The military annexation of Ukraine, well, some people wanted it. Clinton won the popular vote, well, it wasn't the majority.The same attempt at redirection we see in the other thread about the Trump Tower meeting. You keep yammering about how they needed to vet the info from the Russians about potential Clinton "incriminating" acts without being willing to understand that meeting with those Russian agents may have been illegal in itself. And should certainly have been reported to the FBI.I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter. You should stop. None of us is perfect, certainly including myself. We all engage in hyperbole, personal slights, rhetorical excesses when engaged in matters we believe in. I get it. We all understand that.However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.
Quote from: gogators! on September 07, 2018, 11:04:06 amQuote from: Chester Jim on September 07, 2018, 10:45:18 amIs it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling. Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported.
Quote from: Chester Jim on September 07, 2018, 10:45:18 amIs it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling. Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.
Is it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling.
Right. Gogators does not understand the notion of a Republic. I promise, he's googling it right now as he reads this and will have a kiddie-pool-shallow, most likely plagiarized response, immediately followed by regurgitated Democratic talking points. He's such a bore and doesn't realize it.
Quote from: williamwhite on September 08, 2018, 11:41:07 pmRight. Gogators does not understand the notion of a Republic. I promise, he's googling it right now as he reads this and will have a kiddie-pool-shallow, most likely plagiarized response, immediately followed by regurgitated Democratic talking points. He's such a bore and doesn't realize it.What's boring is folks who throw around what they think are BIG WORDS with no understanding of them in hopes they can cow their audience.No sale willie.
Quote from: gogators! on September 09, 2018, 03:15:38 amQuote from: williamwhite on September 08, 2018, 11:41:07 pmRight. Gogators does not understand the notion of a Republic. I promise, he's googling it right now as he reads this and will have a kiddie-pool-shallow, most likely plagiarized response, immediately followed by regurgitated Democratic talking points. He's such a bore and doesn't realize it.What's boring is folks who throw around what they think are BIG WORDS with no understanding of them in hopes they can cow their audience.No sale willie.Like Michael Eric Dyson?
Quote from: Mr C on September 08, 2018, 10:07:26 pmQuote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 07, 2018, 11:55:59 amQuote from: gogators! on September 07, 2018, 11:04:06 amQuote from: Chester Jim on September 07, 2018, 10:45:18 amIs it just me or is having an unelected anonymous staff member working against an elected president unsettling. Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported.This is exactly what you do, Steel Rails, Martin, DMT, whoever you are …See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing. So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it. Eventually.Flash forward to the waygook.org era (I don't--never did--engage on Dave's) and you've found that the thing to do when you are wrong--for sure, not always--is to subtly change the point of debate. If someone is talking about Israel, bring up Syria. The military annexation of Ukraine, well, some people wanted it. Clinton won the popular vote, well, it wasn't the majority.The same attempt at redirection we see in the other thread about the Trump Tower meeting. You keep yammering about how they needed to vet the info from the Russians about potential Clinton "incriminating" acts without being willing to understand that meeting with those Russian agents may have been illegal in itself. And should certainly have been reported to the FBI.I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter. You should stop. None of us is perfect, certainly including myself. We all engage in hyperbole, personal slights, rhetorical excesses when engaged in matters we believe in. I get it. We all understand that.However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.It's safe to assume that gogators thinks the popular vote means majority.
Very good Mr C. Very nicely put.
]See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing. So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.
Clinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.
I imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it. Eventually.
I don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter. You should stop.
However, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.
Quote from: Mr C on September 08, 2018, 10:07:26 pm]See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing. So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.You know, for someone lecturing me about flaws in arguing, you made a major blunder yourself- You left out part of the statement. QuoteClinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.[/b]That Clinton won the popular vote relative to the other candidates, does NOT mean that person is working for the American public IF Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. QuoteI imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it. Eventually.Yeah, you got that part right.QuoteI don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter. You should stop. Mr. C, you don't get it- If you bring up a line of reasoning, then it is fair game for someone to bring up counterpoints related to that line of reasoning. Typically, this is what happens-"Stupid Trump and his warmongering. This is what Republicons do. Under Obama we never had anything like this." "Well actually, it's not just Republicans who do this, Obama did this stuff as well.""Why are you bringing up Obama? Whataboutism! False Equivalence! Deflecting!"If you look back, you'll see a lot of times I actually do give blunt and direct answers to Trump's bad acts. The fact that I then put that answer in context, makes you frustrated for some reason when it shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with adding context. You're just upset about it because it doesn't make your argument as strong.QuoteHowever, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.I do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions.Also, that handful of people I've just named, is like what, 10 out of 1000? Hardly represents the population of waygook as a whole. I think that's your confrimation bias.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 10, 2018, 08:40:21 amI do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions. Mr C replied perfectly as to why your opinions and long extruded essays are complete poppycock. You really should take the time to read it more closely. Really. It'll do you some good. FYI, there are few positives to driving in Korea as has been posited by many well-travelled worldly individuals here, but as you have no licence, it's not something you can comment on legitimately.
I do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on September 10, 2018, 08:40:21 amQuote from: Mr C on September 08, 2018, 10:07:26 pm]See, the statement about the "popular vote" (which Clinton incontrovertibly did win) is not properly rebutted by the idea of "the majority of the vote". Those are not the same thing. So why you would make such an absurd comment is … well, let's just say typical of your manner of "argument" if we can call it that.You know, for someone lecturing me about flaws in arguing, you made a major blunder yourself- You left out part of the statement. QuoteClinton won the popular vote, so the staff member is actually working for the American public.[/b]That Clinton won the popular vote relative to the other candidates, does NOT mean that person is working for the American public IF Clinton did not win a majority of the vote. QuoteI imagine that in your early years on the internet in the days of BBSs and newsgroups, you got schooled on a daily basis by much, much smarter people who called you out on your incredibly poor ability to make a cogent argument. So you got better at it. Eventually.Yeah, you got that part right.QuoteI don't respect you, or your way of arguing. You epitomize everything that is wrong with internet culture (and probably even actual culture). As I have tried to elucidate above, you are fundamentally dishonest in a way that hurts discourse about things that matter. You should stop. Mr. C, you don't get it- If you bring up a line of reasoning, then it is fair game for someone to bring up counterpoints related to that line of reasoning. Typically, this is what happens-"Stupid Trump and his warmongering. This is what Republicons do. Under Obama we never had anything like this." "Well actually, it's not just Republicans who do this, Obama did this stuff as well.""Why are you bringing up Obama? Whataboutism! False Equivalence! Deflecting!"If you look back, you'll see a lot of times I actually do give blunt and direct answers to Trump's bad acts. The fact that I then put that answer in context, makes you frustrated for some reason when it shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with adding context. You're just upset about it because it doesn't make your argument as strong.QuoteHowever, in a group with more than a thousand regular respondents, when you are by far the most disliked and reviled poster … consider Mrs Pentherby.I do have a hardcore group of haters- You, Dave Stepz, Mayor Haggar, gogators!, Savant, Adel and Cyanea. All of whom are liberal and also very negative on Korea (with the exception of you, who is more middle of the road on Korea). Also, can we be honest for a second and acknowledge that with many of them, they aren't exactly the most...nuanced in terms of how they express their opinions.Also, that handful of people I've just named, is like what, 10 out of 1000? Hardly represents the population of waygook as a whole. I think that's your confrimation bias. Woah! They really screwed up. Now your blushing Mr. C. Again, gogators doesn’t know the difference between popular and majority.
I didn't screw up a damn thing. The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now. The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point. If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.
The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
What is so hard to understand, trumpists?QuoteThe Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.That ain't fake news.
Quote from: gogators! on September 10, 2018, 08:08:54 pmWhat is so hard to understand, trumpists?QuoteThe Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.That ain't fake news.That's not a majority of the vote. That's a plurality. That does NOT make Hillary the candidate of "the people". One could say that 50%+1 does, though I wouldn't agree with that. Regardless, she did not have a majority.
Quote from: Mr C on September 10, 2018, 01:49:37 pmI didn't screw up a damn thing. The second part of gogators comment is not addressed by DeMartino's response, as he is claiming now. The fact that there was no winner of the "majority vote" completely moots his point. If a student tried that in a formal debate s/he would lose points.My point was that "The claim that she represents the American public is unsupported." because, in part, Clinton did NOT win a majority of the vote, nor can it be assumed that if she did, that the person in Trump's administration is acting on behalf of the American public. Nor does winning the popular vote confer "the will of the people" or authority on that person as that is not our system of elections and government. Much like people confuse "casualties" with KIA, so too do many people confuse "plurality" and "majority". I hope that clears things up. I admit, it wasn't the neatest post I made earlier. As far as debate- Get a clue. This is politics. Formal rules of debate are meaningless. This is about persuasion. Formal debate comeptitions are useless except for parliamentary style where the emphasis is on persuasion and wit. An American general meeting his counterpart, said "You never won a battle against us." The Vietnamese general thought for a moment and then replied, "Yes, that is true. It is also irrelevant."The same goes for formal debate rules. Applying logical rules to an illogical process undertaken by illogical creatures is an exercise in meaninglessness. All the debate in the world doesn't overcome a Checkers Speech or a Vietnamese girl being burned by napalm or Clinton being tossed in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes.