Rosa Parks stabbed that khokhol girl in the neck on the bus. She must be stopped!!
|
American Politics Discussion Thread
|
(September 9th, 2025, 12:41)Charr Babies Wrote:Quote:Is it possible you can't defend the comments YOU brought up? I know admitting you are wrong is hard, but I believe in you I may need clarification on where you defend the comments. Your main defense seems to be "the Chinese court says so". You know vs actually reading or listening to the quote and debating what he actually said. If there was more than that let me know. I do encourage you to listen and read the quote again. I had NEVER heard of this before you posted. I listened to it and went "wait, that isn't what he said". I feel like I have to keep so much real information in my head to combat misinformation, but in this case all it took was listening to a video you posted; once. Again, I almost didn't respond to save myself the time, but this was too obviously false. What misdirection you ask. WELL. The topic of conversation was your video and how it definitely showed Lai saying the US should Nuke China. If you then bring up the US and genocide you can see how that isn't on topic. There is a reason logical fallacies are logical fallacies. Even if the US justice system is WORSE than the Chinese one, it in no way means that the Chinese one should be trusted. If I admitted that the US justice system is the trash of the earth and the worst legal system EVER, that in no way means the Chinese one is unbiased judicial perfection and you should trust their prosecution of a political dissident. The two have NOTHING to do with one another or the point being made. In an argument its common to point out the logical failures of your opponent. I do use the fallacies as short hand for this. Sure I can explain why your logic makes no sense as I just did, but its time consuming. Its not hypocritical I've admitted many a times to the failings of America, but that isn't the topic of this argument. It was on Lai's comments. Your main defense seeming to be "well the Chinese courts think so". The state of the US courts has absolutely NOTHING to do with the state of the Chinese courts which are the courts relevant to this argument........... I can try to use less fallacies and more long form "your logic is invalid" as I did above. It isn't just "I disagree". There is a reason they are known fallacies. They are recognized ways that arguments are illogical. So yes when I say "red herring" you can either figure out why your argument is a red herring or make me spend a paragraph breaking down exactly why your argument isn't sound. I'm willing to do this if it helps. I'm not saying your experience isn't valid. I'm just saying there is inconsistently with what you've said here previously. Even if there weren't just because your experience is valid it doesn't mean that your experience and opinions can be taken for the those of a whole city. Make sense? Again, this is why I brought up a smaller experience from my own life to show why this kind of argument isn't valid. Your opinion that the coffee and service is good at a starbucks is 100% relevant. Online reviews are something we commonly look at (or at least I do when visiting places / making major purchases). But do you only take 1 review? Or do you read many? How many of them do you suspect are fake? Have you ever read a ton of reviews and then gone and thought "that wasn't at all like what the majority of reviews said". Mind you it may be that place really was like the majority of views said and you just got a different experience or vice versa. And that is something very simple. And we got back to insults. Again. Wonder if there is a fallacy for that? Something about trying to discredit an argument by insulting the speaker... Also, not on the topic of Lai's comments..... Do we want to try this again? Here is my argument "what Lai said based on his wording and the proceeding part of that sentence and the sentence before does not indicate he meant the US should literally nuke China". Next you try to make an argument on why it is the way you claim and that he did mean it literally. While doing this you try really hard to stay on that topic. I'll even give you some help in formulating it. You need to take a look at the part of his statement that I bolded and then explain why it is literal. My argument that it isn't is based on those words. Maybe also explain to me how you came to the conclusion he meant that the US should literally nuke China. Maybe he said it on other occasions in a more clear way (this legit would strengthen your argument). Maybe I'm reading those two sentences completely wrong and you can explain that (I don't think so, but maybe I'm missing something). But ya Lai's comment, stay on topic, and try to stay under 1,000 words.
September 10th, 2025, 12:49
(This post was last modified: September 10th, 2025, 16:42 by Charr Babies.)
Oops, went over 1000 words because I have to quote your garbage.
Quote:I may need clarification on where you defend the comments. Your main defense seems to be "the Chinese court says so". You know vs actually reading or listening to the quote and debating what he actually said. If there was more than that let me know. I do encourage you to listen and read the quote again. I had NEVER heard of this before you posted. I listened to it and went "wait, that isn't what he said". I feel like I have to keep so much real information in my head to combat misinformation, but in this case all it took was listening to a video you posted; once. Again, I almost didn't respond to save myself the time, but this was too obviously false. My opinion doesn’t matter to the outcome of this case, and your opinion matters less than a piece of shit - I just flushed down the toilet. Quote:Ah yes a political trial in an autocracy From that alone you have committed Genetic Fallacy - The nature of the regime doesn’t automatically determine the truth or fairness of a specific case Ad Hominem - It avoids engaging with the actual content of the trial and instead attacks the broader political context. Circular Reasoning - It assumes what it’s trying to prove, without independent justification. False Dichotomy - Trials can be flawed or fair in any system. The binary oversimplifies complex legal realities. Appeal to Popular Bias - It relies on prejudice rather than proof. The guy screaming "fallacy!" in every sentence is the walking embodiment of one. Quote:Ah yes a political trial in an autocracy You begged for the comparison You say 'the Chinese court says so' isn't good enough, as if US legal interpretation should be the global standard (in China). When the alternative is legal system that allows a convicted felon serving as president while actively committing genocide, the moral high ground doesn't belong to the stars and stripes. In this case, the Chinese court isn't just good enough - it’s better. Quote:What misdirection you ask. WELL. The topic of conversation was your video and how it definitely showed Lai saying the US should Nuke China. If you then bring up the US and genocide you can see how that isn't on topic. There is a reason logical fallacies are logical fallacies. Even if the US justice system is WORSE than the Chinese one, it in no way means that the Chinese one should be trusted. If I admitted that the US justice system is the trash of the earth and the worst legal system EVER, that in no way means the Chinese one is unbiased judicial perfection and you should trust their prosecution of a political dissident. The two have NOTHING to do with one another or the point being made. In an argument its common to point out the logical failures of your opponent. I do use the fallacies as short hand for this. Sure I can explain why your logic makes no sense as I just did, but its time consuming. Its not hypocritical I've admitted many a times to the failings of America, but that isn't the topic of this argument. It was on Lai's comments. Your main defense seeming to be "well the Chinese courts think so". The state of the US courts has absolutely NOTHING to do with the state of the Chinese courts which are the courts relevant to this argument........... I can try to use less fallacies and more long form "your logic is invalid" as I did above. It isn't just "I disagree". There is a reason they are known fallacies. They are recognized ways that arguments are illogical. So yes when I say "red herring" you can either figure out why your argument is a red herring or make me spend a paragraph breaking down exactly why your argument isn't sound. I'm willing to do this if it helps. The conversation was over when you dismissed the case by smearing the Chinese court with extreme prejudice, while you have a convict sitting at the oval office committing genocide. I am not engaging in that debate anymore since a few posts ago. If I were defending China’s actions by saying 'It’s alright because the U.S. does it too,' that would be a Tu Quoque fallacy. But I didn’t defend China’s position, nor did I excuse it. That’s not a fallacy, it’s calling out your HYPOCRISY, hypocrisy wrapped in SELECTIVE OUTRAGE. You begged for the comparison, your double standard is obvious I am saying "who the fuck are you to talk!?" Quote:I'm not saying your experience isn't valid. I'm just saying there is inconsistently with what you've said here previously. Even if there weren't just because your experience is valid it doesn't mean that your experience and opinions can be taken for the those of a whole city. Make sense? Again, this is why I brought up a smaller experience from my own life to show why this kind of argument isn't valid. Your opinion that the coffee and service is good at a starbucks is 100% relevant. Online reviews are something we commonly look at (or at least I do when visiting places / making major purchases). But do you only take 1 review? Or do you read many? How many of them do you suspect are fake? Have you ever read a ton of reviews and then gone and thought "that wasn't at all like what the majority of reviews said". Mind you it may be that place really was like the majority of views said and you just got a different experience or vice versa. And that is something very simple. Right, my opinion is NOT Appeal to Authority Learn your fallacies. We have already busted the fallacy with your kids. Quote:Saying “it could be wrong or not the whole picture” is true of literally everything - including polls, media narratives, and expert analysis. That kind of blanket doubt isn’t logic, it’s avoidance. If we dismissed every perspective for being incomplete, we’d have no insight at all. The real fallacy (Oops, just pulled a Mjmd there. My bad) here is pretending that uncertainty equals irrelevance. We already know logic isn’t your strong suit. A little critical think goes a long way.... The guy screaming "fallacy!" in every sentence is the walking embodiment of one. Quote:Also, not on the topic of Lai's comments..... Do we want to try this again? Here is my argument "what Lai said based on his wording and the proceeding part of that sentence and the sentence before does not indicate he meant the US should literally nuke China". Next you try to make an argument on why it is the way you claim and that he did mean it literally. While doing this you try really hard to stay on that topic. I'll even give you some help in formulating it. You need to take a look at the part of his statement that I bolded and then explain why it is literal. My argument that it isn't is based on those words. Maybe also explain to me how you came to the conclusion he meant that the US should literally nuke China. Maybe he said it on other occasions in a more clear way (this legit would strengthen your argument). Maybe I'm reading those two sentences completely wrong and you can explain that (I don't think so, but maybe I'm missing something). But ya Lai's comment, stay on topic, and try to stay under 1,000 words. I’m no longer interested in that debate (why? read above), and you won’t get a response no matter how you twist the narrative. I’m only offering this as a courtesy to you, since you’re whining like a child about hurt feelings. Statement in Question: “And you have the nuclear weapon, you can finish them in a minute.” I believe it is a full stop but you believe it is a comma before this sentence, but the The word "AND you have the nuclear weapon" real asymmetry, not just metaphorical imbalance, but a decisive advantage. AND means on top of that, If it is just metaphorical, he would have said "It’s like you’re armed with a nuclear weapon against an unarmed opponent." Core Argument: The metaphor defense fails because the language used is dangerously ambiguous and evokes literal nuclear annihilation. In a geopolitical context, such phrasing is reasonably interpreted as a threat, not symbolic speech. Key Points: The phrase implies instant destruction, which only nuclear force can achieve - making the metaphor implausible. Public figures must anticipate how their words may be misused or weaponized, especially by hostile actors or extremist groups. Courts (Non Chinese) have ruled that metaphorical speech does not excuse reckless or inciting language, especially when consequences are foreseeable. Given the context, influence of the speaker, and international fallout, the metaphor defense is insufficient. The statement warrants scrutiny under laws governing incitement and public endangerment. I’m not interested in hearing more on this from a two-bit armchair lawyer! Quote:stay on topic Right, don’t try to go off on a tangent like saying Trump is worse than Biden in genocide.
FREE AMERICA? No, But Free Tibet - Wherever The Fuck That Is
We Cash All Checks - We Also Accept: Disinformation - photos from other places to fake concentration camps in Tibet. ✓ Raping a country with war crimes, nuking another to submission, makes us the lesser evil. ✓ Photos of concentration camps as solid proof of genocide ✓ Our free range troll  Keeping Everyone Honest#4832, #4781, #4772, #5056, #5095
The left looks pretty fucking badass right now. Honestly I am seeing how much they go out and actually fight back against authority and think to myself "these are men". You know what I mean? Like "men". Like REAL MEN.
Gunslingers who aren't afraid to pull the trigger and disrupt the status quo, putting their words into action and getting clean shots at their opponents. Men throwing the first punch and standing their waiting for your answer back... And the right wing...? Fucking cowards. Children. Bootlickers. Weak. Slovenly. Soft. Frightened. Beaten. Erectile Dysfunctional. Impotent.
September 11th, 2025, 05:13
(This post was last modified: September 11th, 2025, 06:37 by BING_XI_LAO.)
Actually I don't know whether to find Charlie Kirk's death funny. I can't tell if he's still the asinine shill who in 2019 celebrated the US pressuring Botswana into decriminalising homosexuality, and who backed Israel's Gaza policy in 2023.
It seems like he began to introduce some authentic human sentiments into his coverage over time, could have been sincere, could have been a further layer of gatekeeping. The main purveryors of political assassinations at present are The ukraine, Israel, and the Trump Admin, could be The ukraine if it was a state sponsor, or even Israel if they expected him to continue rowing back his support for them.
I almost was going to let you have the last word, but in that absolute mess you actually did sometimes address some actual argument. I knew you could do it.
You actually are correct. My sentence "political trial in an autocracy" was flawed. See I can admit when I'm wrong. My mind was short handing and I should have said a political trial in a country known for cracking down on political dissidents. That is provable. Some people disappear and come back but suddenly are much more quite, some people just disappear, and their crackdown on anyone in China saying anything against the government / gov officials is pretty well known. Sidebar: there once was an autocratic ruler who had his son and heir tried and was executed from the trial result even though the king did not want it to happen. There aren't many historical examples of this (very very very very very very ect very for a while few), but my original statement was incorrect. For the record I don't think its ad hominem. Even in its flawed form its not an insult. My argument might be wrong, but its not an insult on the speaker trying to disprove the argument. Im not sure its circular reasoning fallacy either. I think the fallacy is more of an ad nauseum fallacy. In any case yes I asserted something without proving it and in fact I just posted an example disproving my original statement. It was indeed incorrect in that format. False dichotomy - yes without proving that autocracies generally have less fair legal systems, that is a fallacy. I did not do this so you are correct. I do not think this is appeal to popular bias. But yes it was flawed as written. And below we have an actual argument!!! Quote:Statement in Question: Just to be clear that isn't the statement. I've posted it a couple times, but lets look at it again. Quote:Quote:Lai What comes before the and with or without a comma (punctuation is added so yes maybe that last sentence is part of the prior as well) he is talking about China not having a weapon. If you just took that sentence "Its like going to battle without any weapon and you have the nuclear weapon". The word "like" pretty clearly indicates it ISN'T literal. Even if you have NO OTHER CONTEXT using the word "like" indicates metaphor. The fact that he is saying China has no weapon again also indicates he isn't talking literally. I would also contend "and" is being used a connector here and not starting a completely new and separate topic as he is staying on the topic of weapons and its pretty clear that part is metaphor. But lets go through the key points: - the last sentence does imply instant, if you ONLY look at that and nuclear weapon and ignore everything else then yes you could be right. But everything else before it? There is a part of this statement both in the bolded section and also at the beginning that is the direct reference to a cold war. Cold being very much the opposite of hot IE direct engagement. Again, also if you ignore the "use your moral authority" bit as well. And you ignore "its like they are going to battle". So why should the whole rest of the statement be thrown out in determining if he was being literal or not and why should we only cherry pick part of it? The ending part of a statement usually relies on what came before it. There is so much indicating it is metaphor I don't see the argument for dangerously ambiguous. The entire thing before "and" is all context to the metaphor. And to be clear that is a different bar than literal and a whole different argument. - Public figures should be aware of how their speech can be twisted by hostile actors. I'm not saying he was smart for making the comment; China is obviously using it against him. I'm just saying it wasn't literal. This doesn't address the argument. - Courts and metaphor- A) Do we care about the courts and metaphor charges for this argument? My argument is you've indicated he meant it literally and I say it very clearly isn't. If you admit he should be tried as it was a dangerous metaphor than I win this argument. Could we have a different argument on if its a dangerous metaphor and if he should be charged under that. Yes, but it doesn't' relate to this argument. B) Again, haven't followed this case, but you seem to indicate China is trying to indite him for using it literally. This was one of your proofs it was literal. Any politically charged (or any normal for that matter) trial anywhere I think its important to look at the evidence. Looking at the evidence, I very much contend it isn't literal and have explained my rationale behind that and refuted yours. I want to note only one of your key points actually was on it being literal. That isn't a great sign for the strength of an argument. That key point cherry picked part of the sentence and ignored all the context before it. I've admitted I was wrong, I believe in you; you can do it too.
September 11th, 2025, 14:59
(This post was last modified: September 12th, 2025, 06:20 by Charr Babies.)
(September 11th, 2025, 12:44)Mjmd Wrote: You actually are correct. My sentence "political trial in an autocracy" was flawed. See I can admit when I'm wrong. My mind was short handing and I should have said a political trial in a country known for cracking down on political dissidents. That is provable. Some people disappear and come back but suddenly are much more quite, some people just disappear, and their crackdown on anyone in China saying anything against the government / gov officials is pretty well known. Sidebar: there once was an autocratic ruler who had his son and heir tried and was executed from the trial result even though the king did not want it to happen. There aren't many historical examples of this (very very very very very very ect very for a while few), but my original statement was incorrect. For the record I don't think its ad hominem. Even in its flawed form its not an insult. My argument might be wrong, but its not an insult on the speaker trying to disprove the argument. Im not sure its circular reasoning fallacy either. I think the fallacy is more of an ad nauseum fallacy. In any case yes I asserted something without proving it and in fact I just posted an example disproving my original statement. It was indeed incorrect in that format. False dichotomy - yes without proving that autocracies generally have less fair legal systems, that is a fallacy. I did not do this so you are correct. I do not think this is appeal to popular bias. But yes it was flawed as written. Here's one of the lessons I have been trying to teach you pretty much since I have joined this forum. I hope you are finally getting it. THE LESSON TO LEARN: I don’t toss fallacies like cheap confetti, that’s the mark of weak debaters. I came in clean and cut straight through with a direct takedown. Quote:Quote:Ah yes a political trial in an autocracy ... and Hypocrisy - Selective Outrage. I didn't call you on that either until you falsely slapped a fallacy on my reply. But I didn't call you on it until I am done with Hong Kong and focus on this new lesson for you. I came in clean and cut straight through with a direct takedown - with one simple little sentence. Quote:said you while a convicted felon sits in the Oval Office, committing genocide. See how clean this is. instead of Quote:From that on short little sentence alone you have committed When I exposed your endless fallacies within a single sentence, you backpedaled and spewed more garbage... So you went from "autocracy" to "a country known for cracking down on dissidents" - same judgment, just dressed up differently. It is still hypocrisy wrapped in selective outrage, exactly what I called out. And then you go ahead to commit more fallacies. Equivocation Fallacy - using ambiguous language to mask a controversial stance. Moving the goalposts - changing the criteria of the argument to avoid being proven wrong No Kidding - The guy screaming "fallacy!" in every sentence is the walking embodiment of one. THE LESSON TO LEARN Shouting “logical fallacy” every time you’re cornered doesn’t make your argument smarter - it just makes your panic louder - Sounding like a parrot trying to pass off noise as logic.
FREE AMERICA? No, But Free Tibet - Wherever The Fuck That Is
We Cash All Checks - We Also Accept: Disinformation - photos from other places to fake concentration camps in Tibet. ✓ Raping a country with war crimes, nuking another to submission, makes us the lesser evil. ✓ Photos of concentration camps as solid proof of genocide ✓ Our free range troll Keeping Everyone Honest#4832, #4781, #4772, #5056, #5095
September 11th, 2025, 16:05
(This post was last modified: September 12th, 2025, 06:32 by Charr Babies.)
(September 11th, 2025, 05:13)BING_XI_LAO Wrote: Actually I don't know whether to find Charlie Kirk's death funny. I can't tell if he's still the asinine shill who in 2019 celebrated the US pressuring Botswana into decriminalising homosexuality, and who backed Israel's Gaza policy in 2023. Just another assassination in a long string of political assassinations throughout the US's short history. I had to google to find out who the guy is - I have seen him a couple of times on Tik Tok. Is he something of a big deal?
FREE AMERICA? No, But Free Tibet - Wherever The Fuck That Is
We Cash All Checks - We Also Accept: Disinformation - photos from other places to fake concentration camps in Tibet. ✓ Raping a country with war crimes, nuking another to submission, makes us the lesser evil. ✓ Photos of concentration camps as solid proof of genocide ✓ Our free range troll Keeping Everyone Honest#4832, #4781, #4772, #5056, #5095
September 12th, 2025, 06:54
(This post was last modified: September 12th, 2025, 07:04 by Charr Babies.)
Henry Kissinger: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but fatal to be its friend.”
Another ally thrown under the bus - after bribing Trump with a $400 million jumbo jet dubbed the palace in the sky Doha must be wondering, “What the fuck is going on?” - especially given its role as a host to 10,000 American troops and its cooperation with US operations in the region. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Anyone still showing up to US brokered peace talks - the shame’s all yours 
FREE AMERICA? No, But Free Tibet - Wherever The Fuck That Is
We Cash All Checks - We Also Accept: Disinformation - photos from other places to fake concentration camps in Tibet. ✓ Raping a country with war crimes, nuking another to submission, makes us the lesser evil. ✓ Photos of concentration camps as solid proof of genocide ✓ Our free range troll Keeping Everyone Honest#4832, #4781, #4772, #5056, #5095
September 12th, 2025, 08:27
(This post was last modified: September 12th, 2025, 08:29 by Mjmd.)
I will try to cut back on using fallacies as short cut and in detail go into why your arguments are bad. For instance, all those words and not a single one on the actual argument. This a clear case of trying to distract from a lost argument and change the subject. When people do this it isn't considered good argument, because it isn't on the topic of the argument. Its also a case of trying to insult the person speaking and therefore try to diminish the validity of their argument. I could be dumb as a rock, but it doesn't make the argument less logical or correct. The fact you can't refute my argument and use these tactics instead is a good indicator on who's argument is stronger.
|