@hightor,
hightor wrote:When he claims not to have ever said something which can be disproven he's engaging in rhetorical sleight of hand.
Let's be clear here. I don't claim infallibility. There are rare occasions where I do make a minor error, although usually not about the main point that I am making.
When I point out that "someone cannot point out a single thing that I am wrong about" I am addressing an untrue claim about imaginary errors that I have never made.
There is no sleight of hand. When people cannot point out anything that I am wrong about, I am correct to point that out.
hightor wrote:Many of his comments, ones which earn him his enviable record of thumbdowns, are just conjecture or opinion:
Quote:This Sanders creep quite simply hates civil liberties.
Banning pistol grips on rifles will not save a single life.
Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.
More leftist phony outrage.
The first three of those are clearly facts. As such, they could be disproved if they were actually wrong.
The fourth is factual too, although I was not really asserting a fact in that comment. Rather I was just dismissing the silly antics of the left.
However, even if I had actually been expressing opinions there, it would still be wrong for leftists to say that those opinions were incorrect. And I would still be entirely right to respond by pointing out that my opinions were not incorrect. Opinions are neither correct nor incorrect.
I realize that leftists like to make untrue assertions that people are incorrect, and that it is discomforting for the left when people defend themselves against their untrue assertions. But it is in no way sleight of hand for people to properly point out that their statements are not incorrect when the left wrongly claims that they are.
hightor wrote:Obviously one could argue with these statements but you'd be unlikely to actually show them to be false.
The main reason why the statements cannot be shown to be false is because they are completely true.
However, even if they had actually been opinions (which are neither correct nor incorrect), the left would still be entirely wrong to say that they were incorrect, and I would still be entirely right to point out that those opinions were not incorrect in any way.
hightor wrote:For instance, he claims that white nationalists in Charlottesville never said "Jews will not replace us" even though it was widely reported at the time and can be seen and heard on video — he just denied it and claimed they were saying something else.
I'm a stickler for facts.
hightor wrote:And how would anyone know that "banning pistol grips on rifles will not save a single life"
By understanding the fact that pistol grips do nothing to make a gun more dangerous.
hightor wrote:it's simply an opinion based on an unwholesome fascination with military firearms.
That is incorrect. It is a fact.
hightor wrote:Best way to deal with a robotic presence like this is to put it on "ignore" and only click "view" a limited number of times when an exchange needs a bit of context. Its statements are seldom worth refuting -- because of its programming it will simply supply any one of a number of pat responses, all of which we've seen before.
Don't be silly. The left would desperately love to be able to refute the facts that I post. They just are unable to do so.
hightor wrote:Responding to it or trying to make a reasonable counterargument is ultimately a waste of time and by engaging with it we end up validating its insipid inanity, inadvertently stroking its mechanistic ego.
A reasonable counterargument would not be a waste of time. It's just that no reasonable counterargument exists.
hightor wrote:I had posted this earlier but had to edit it because oralloy accused me of name-calling , objected to being labeled as "special", and demanded that it be deleted.
Name-calling is always a poor way to try to prop up an argument.
