Discussion The media should stop giving air time to Trump lackeys

[pcgeek11]

I have. If you are not arguing for maintaining lies in politics then you should refine your argument, because it is hard to read it any other way. When you argue against a point, it must be assumed that you are arguing for the counter point unless you make a different point. You never make a point, so the only position that your argument can support is the counter point, which in this case is that we should not work to remove lies from politics.

I explained it to you. I cannot understand it for you.

Sorry about your incorrect assumptions.

 

[VRAMdemon]

it's indicative of the influence that social media, news for ratings and authoritarian hostile foreign powers now has on American politics. They have infected American political discourse with a virus, one which proposes that people accept the idea that there really is no such thing as a man or woman of the people - they're all corrupt on some level. "Just accept that you're screwed."

 

[TeeJay1952]

The Who from Tommy: "Let's forget you better still!"

 

[interchange]

"Get over it" is the dare. Imagine someone saying this after being told to back off for groping someone. No. Don't get over it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I explained it to you. I cannot understand it for you.

You did not, as I pretty well explained.

Sorry about your incorrect assumptions.

This also fails as an apology.

I'm begging to see the problem with your arguments. You are trying to jump ahead of yourself by thinking that others know what your premises are and just moving straight to your conclusions. To form a coherent argument you need to have three parts: you assertions, your inferences, your conclusions. You skip the first two and without them we can not understand how you get to your conclusions, so it end up looking like you are just blindly repeating talking points that have been give to you without you actually understanding them.

 

[fskimospy]

You did not, as I pretty well explained.

This also fails as an apology.

I'm begging to see the problem with your arguments. You are trying to jump ahead of yourself by thinking that others know what your premises are and just moving straight to your conclusions. To form a coherent argument you need to have three parts: you assertions, your inferences, your conclusions. You skip the first two and without them we can not understand how you get to your conclusions, so it end up looking like you are just blindly repeating talking points that have been give to you without you actually understanding them.

That’s his standard MO:

Pcgeek: I believe X

Anyone else: why?

Pcgeek: it’s a secret.

 

[pcgeek11]

You did not, as I pretty well explained.

This also fails as an apology.

I'm begging to see the problem with your arguments. You are trying to jump ahead of yourself by thinking that others know what your premises are and just moving straight to your conclusions. To form a coherent argument you need to have three parts: you assertions, your inferences, your conclusions. You skip the first two and without them we can not understand how you get to your conclusions, so it end up looking like you are just blindly repeating talking points that have been give to you without you actually understanding them.

That’s his standard MO:

Pcgeek: I believe X

Anyone else: why?

Pcgeek: it’s a secret.

You two obviously fail to be able to follow a conversation between another poster and myself:
Please point out where I supported politicians lying to the public. I was only pointing out that most if not all do it. Some more some less.
I think you are being overly obtuse about it.

If you cannot follow the below conversation I feel sorry for you.

**********************
ivwshane:
I think he probably doesn’t want to give air time to people who willingly lie to the press and American people.

Me:
In order to accomplish that they would probably have to stop allowing 90% of politicians of both parties from having air time.

ivwshane:
Observable reality would disagree with you.

Me:
I disagree.

I'm not comparing levels of lies or how many lies each one tells.

You said:

" I think he probably doesn’t want to give air time to people who willingly lie to the press and American people. "

I would venture to guess that at least 90% if not more politicians willingly lie to the press and the American people on a regular basis. And in order to achieve what you stated they would have to ban most politicians.

ivwshane:
Put up or shut up. If you are going to venture into pedantry you better bring the goods.

Me:
I quoted you word for word and stated my opinion on what you said.

I'm sorry your words offended you.

Who draws the line of how many or how large of a lie is allowed?
How many intentional lies are acceptable to you?
How do you grade the level of each lie?

ivwshane:
I’d say three strikes and you are out. The networks/news program can make the call on how serious the lies are.

Me:
Three strikes rule alone would rule out most politicians of all parties.

Glad we can agree on something.