Brandon9000
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 06:56 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
You have to argue ideas based on their merit, not based on their origin.

Ah yes. Let's do that.

To some people it seems that all crimes are committed by blacks.
To some people it seems that all whites are racists that violate the law.
To some people it seems that all Muslims are terrorists.
To some people it seems that all Americans are terrorists.

The merit of basing a policy strictly on what it seems to some people is pretty silly, don't you agree?

A. Neither I nor Donald Trump has said that all Muslims are terrorists, so that is a straw man. A minimum prerequisite for informed debate is to be able to state your opponents position correctly. B. It is irrational not to act based on one's perceptions.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 06:57 pm
@Brandon9000,
Show me where I was off topic?
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 06:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

"Seems to be Muslim" has no bearing on Trump's declaration.

Do you always quote fractions of sentences?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 06:59 pm
@Brandon9000,
Only parts that are relevant.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 06:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Show me where I was off topic?


Sure. Comments about the poster are not comments about the merits of his position.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:00 pm
@Brandon9000,
But, you are relevant to this thread; you're stupid!
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Only parts that are relevant.

My meaning was that Muslims seem to commit a disproportionate number of the terrorist acts in the West. Talking about the fact that I said it awkwardly is an irrelevant distraction. You should argue that Muslims do not constitute a disproportionate fraction of the people committing acts of terror in the West.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

But, you are relevant to this thread; you're stupid!

Nothing you say or even prove about me personally disproves anything that I say. I must conclude that you find it easier to make ad hominem remarks that to argue that my position is wrong. If you continue to argue off topic, I will simply ignore you.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
There's no need to disprove what you say; they disprove themselves.
If a statement is factual, it's not an ad hominem. Logic 101.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
There's no need to disprove what you say; they disprove themselves.

So, basically, you are unable to defend your ideas. Bye, bye.

(Factual or not, proving that someone is stupid, evil, unworthy, etc. doesn't prove that his statements are wrong. Simply astounding that you don't get this after all these years. Again, you apparently cannot defend your ideas.)
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:14 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

The equal protection clause doesn't say there can't be any standards. It says the standards have to be applied equally and according to the US Constitution. Under your argument, you have no way to argue against same sex marriage.

Again, I contend that it doesn't force immigration authorities to admit non-citizens into the country.


Your statement is true, as far as it goes, but there is no way I can agree that religion is a valid reason under the first amendment.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 07:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon: "My meaning was that Muslims seem to commit a disproportionate number of the terrorist acts in the West."

Fact: 69% of violent crimes in the US are committed by whites.
McGentrix
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 09:04 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

The equal protection clause doesn't say there can't be any standards. It says the standards have to be applied equally and according to the US Constitution. Under your argument, you have no way to argue against same sex marriage.

Again, I contend that it doesn't force immigration authorities to admit non-citizens into the country.


Your statement is true, as far as it goes, but there is no way I can agree that religion is a valid reason under the first amendment.


That's why we should just ban all immigrants from specific nations instead of choosing Muslims. Say no one from the middle east, except Israel or other specific allies (some may need vetted) or countries that have had a large influx of middle eastern immigrants.

Easy peasy.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 09:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon: "My meaning was that Muslims seem to commit a disproportionate number of the terrorist acts in the West."

Fact: 69% of violent crimes in the US are committed by whites.


Violent crime does not equal terrorism. That's like saying 69% of apples are pears.
cicerone imposter
 
  -2  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 09:20 pm
@McGentrix,
You're an idiot - first class.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 10:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You're an idiot - first class.


See, I was gonna just throw an insult your way and move on but thought better of it. Instead I demonstrated why your statement was extraordinarily stupid. Maybe the stupidest comment on this thread. So ponderously stupid that only someone of Neanderthalic proportions of intelligence would post something so extremely stupid. It's like you didn't read a single word of the post you quoted. Like your fingers just puked on the keyboard and that amount of stupidity found its way in the ether.

You just don't get it, do you?
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 10:46 pm
@McGentrix,
Do you know what a fact is?
FACT: Whites committed 69% of violent crimes in the US.
There were 1,165,383 violent crimes in the US in 2014.
69% represents over 804,000 violent crimes committed by Whites.
How does that compare to Muslim violent crimes in the US?
McGentrix
 
  0  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 11:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Do you understand what a conversation is? The topic was islamic terrorism and then you start ragging about violent crime as though it means anything to the conversation. That's why I said what I did. Everyone ellse was talking about something else and you barge in about whites committing more violent crime. Like playing blernsball without a rope. You just don't get it.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 11:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
He may not be stupid CI. He may be an uneducated racist. Good to see your back CI.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Fri 11 Dec, 2015 11:59 pm
@McGentrix,
If he dosent he has you for company. But I think your wrong. He understands your type perfectly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Future President, Donald Trump
  3. » Page 93
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:42:09
▲ ▼