Theory about conservatives

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 123
#91
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Stop being a douche. I never denied the chant. What I denied was that Jan 6th was some sort of insurrection against America instigated by Trump.

Pretending to ignore my videos doesn't save you. They are still there, and they contradict the claim you and Double_R are trying to advance.
#92
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Double_R
So you agree with the fact that the Taliban shouldn't exist on Twitter yet they still do? I would constitute there beliefs as hate speech, especially there actions?

Why haven't they banned yet Trump has been?
#93
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Double_R
The point is companies have a right to do what they want, but to say there isn't a political bias with Twitter that leads to bans is simply 2 dimensional thinking
#94
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Stop being a douche. I never denied the chant. What I denied was that Jan 6th was some sort of insurrection against America instigated by Trump.
That's the point. You haven't denied the chant and yet your position is that the crowd was friendly and festive. 

There is a sliding scale between "Friendly and festive" and "Violent and rebellious" which the chant demonstrates. But your description paints a pretty and utterly fake narrative which does allow for anything other than friendly and festive.

So dishonest partisan hack? Absolutely apt description of you.


#95
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Please stop being a douche.

Here are my supporting facts.
1. The demonstrators taking selfies with Capitol police INSIDE the Capitol building.
2. Videos of capitol police holding doors open for demonstrators.
3. Videos of inside the capitol where people are snapping pics, walking casually around, and singing patriotic songs in the presence of clearly relaxed capitol police.
4. Not a single fatality of any officer of the law.
5. No one brought a weapon to a rebellious insurrection?
6. The head of the Senate and boss of the Capitol police declining to send more officers.
7. Not a single demonstrator has been charged with insurrection or rebellion.
8. An FBI report that there was no attempt at insurrection or overthrow of the US government.

Here is your supporting fact.
1. The demonstrators were chanting, "Hang Mike Pence!"

Democrats called the Antifa/BLM riots "mostly peaceful", but officers were killed,  flags were burned, and chants were, "Death to America!” and "Burn it all down!"

Your hypocrasy is sickening.
#96
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
To be quite clear,  the description of "I see people solemly singing the national anthem, taking selfies with capitol officers, and having doors held open for elderly ladies." does not match up with "protesters were chanting “let’s hang with Mike Pence”. You can dismiss anything you like, but until you actually address this discrepancy instead of conjuring up an excuse, you are a dishonest partisan hack.

I don't need to address anything. I haven't made any claims, you have. And when confronted with a contradiction to that claim, you deflect. When you get called out for deflecting, you deflect again. 

To be clear, there is no implication from my end that the crowd was violent and rebellious and that is not a claim I have made. The only claim here is that people were chanting "hang mike pence". Now obviously, this is just an expression of free speech and an element of a protest. However, one is hardly "friendly and festive" if one is chanting for the lynching of someone, which is a contradiction.

#97
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
So your only point now is that the crowd chanted, "Hang Mike Pence"?

Or is it also that the chant meant the crowd was in rebellion to the government? If not, then thanks for playing.
#98
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,174
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
The baker said he would make a cake just not one depicting a gay wedding, service was not refused. Its no different than asking a baker to make a cake shaped like a dick or some other depiction the baker finds inappropriate.. The photographer did not refuse service he declined because it involved a gay wedding, again same scenario. Both parties were sued using the judicial system to force them or pay heavy fines, which they did. Also they were publicly persecuted by the news media.. But what ever, you find no fault in forcing people using the gun barrel of govt (THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM)  to cow tow to what they believe patently immoral and perverted. 
#99
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
That's the point. You haven't denied the chant and yet your position is that the crowd was friendly and festive. 

There is a sliding scale between "Friendly and festive" and "Violent and rebellious" which the chant demonstrates. But your description paints a pretty and utterly fake narrative which does allow for anything other than friendly and festive.

#100
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
I denied that the chant made the crowd rebellious. I did this by showing you video of the crowd being friendly and festive. I had supporting facts that the crowd was not an insurrection, and that no one was arrested for rebellion or insurrection.

I gave you examples of crowds (Antifa/BLM) that were actually rebellious and actually violent with their chants. Your position is that the "Hang Mike Pence" means the crowd was rebellious. That is your interpretation. Spin. And it disagrees with all the other incidents that day.

There is nothing more I can say to you if actual videos do not make you admit the truth. Follow your MSM talking points. It's no wonder you could not answer a single question in my posts.
Topic's author
#101
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Vader
So you agree with the fact that the Taliban shouldn't exist on Twitter yet they still do? I would constitute there beliefs as hate speech, especially there actions?

Why haven't they banned yet Trump has been?
I don’t know what the answer to that question is, if you’d like to know go ask Twitter. I could speculate however as to Twitter’s rationale; because the Taliban have not violated their ToS and/or because there is no reason based on their activity and following to suspect that they pose an elevated risk to the general public.

Is that answer valid? Don’t know, don’t really care. If however there is a terrorist attack and we have reason to believe the Taliban’s posts are at least partly responsible then I would definitely support and be outraged by a lack of their banning from Twitter.

The latter is exactly the case with regards to Donald Trump. Folks like myself have been warning about how dangerous this man is to the general public for years, then we saw the effects of his rhetoric on January 6th. His banning by that point was frankly common sense.

The point is companies have a right to do what they want, but to say there isn't a political bias with Twitter that leads to bans is simply 2 dimensional thinking
I’ve never argued that Twitter has no bias. What I may have argued is that this decision is not a product of bias, at least not to any reasonable degree. The only bias here is claiming that he should be allowed to continue spreading his rhetoric after watching congress evacuate the US Capitol because his supporters listened to the blatant lies he was telling them.

Future generations will absolutely understand this once the passions of the moment cool down. This period in US history will be a case study for generations to come in how to mind warp a society.

#102
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
I denied that the chant made the crowd rebellious.
Which is interesting because no one has asserted that the chant made the crowd rebellious.

I did this by showing you video of the crowd being friendly and festive.
While I have no doubt there are videos of the crowd being friendly and festive, you haven't actually shown any videos of such. However it's concerning that you think you have.

 I had supporting facts that the crowd was not an insurrection, and that no one was arrested for rebellion or insurrection.
You certainly did bring up such facts. However that is not the contention here so I don't know why.

I gave you examples of crowds (Antifa/BLM) that were actually rebellious and actually violent with their chants. 
Irrelevant to my position. Also irrelevant to any position that concerns the events of January the 6th.

 Your position is that the "Hang Mike Pence" means the crowd was rebellious.
Incorrect. My position is that the existence of the Hang Mike Pence chanters is contradictory to your claim that the protesters were friendly and festive.
#103
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Irrelevant to my position
Of course. You always think evidence showing your bias and hypocrasy is "irrelevant" to your position. I happen to disagree. It is relevant.

My position is that the existence of the Hang Mike Pence chanters is contradictory to your claim that the protesters were friendly and festive.
Spin. That is your biased interpretation. I have evidence that the crowd WAS friendly and festive, you want to focus on one tiny thing and interpret the entire crowd by it, ignoring all the other evidence.

So, if, according to you the crowd was neither rebellious or festive, what were they?
#104
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Of course. You always think evidence showing your bias and hypocrasy is "irrelevant" to your position. I happen to disagree. It is relevant.
Oh? Ok then. Could you explain how one event is relevant to an argument for another and how my bias and hypocrisy is shown, and why my bias and hypocrisy is relevant?

Spin. That is your biased interpretation. I have evidence that the crowd WAS friendly and festive, you want to focus on one tiny thing and interpret the entire crowd by it, ignoring all the other evidence.
The context of this protest is "I support Trump. I believe our election was stolen. I have been illegally disenfranchised. All the institutional safeguards have failed, including SCOTUS, Pence and Barr. I believe this to such an extent I am travelling all the way to DC to make my voice heard and to stop this miscarriage of justice."

So when you are presented evidence that the crowd is not friendly and festive and ignore it despite the context, you are the one ignoring all the other evidence. 

Hence dishonest partisan hack

So, if, according to you the crowd was neither rebellious or festive, what were they?
I leave it simply as "not friendly and festive".
#105
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
I leave it simply as "not friendly and festive".
Lol, ok hack.

I'm not a liberal partisan hack, so I cannot ignore all the evidence showing the crowd was festive. 

Thank God there is no law against not being friendly and festive, or those demonstrators would have NOT been charged with that too!
#106
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
To be clear, I did take all the evidence in. Personally I concluded that in the context of protestors who are motivated enough to join a protest, who feel their rights have been taken away, who feel they have no other recourse in combination with death chants, gallows, property damage and violence, the January 6th protestors cannot be concluded to be festive. Frankly, it doesn't make sense to happy when you feel your rights have been taken away from you.

But of course, this has nothing to do with me. This has to do with your nth deflection where you are simply unable to engage with any sort of conversation.

QED dishonest partisan hack
#107
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Because you assume, like all liberal hypocrites do, that everyone is like you and your Antifa/BLM goons. Jan 6th demonstrators were at their beloved nation's capital, in a crowd of like minded patriots, and happy to be in a country where they could express their political opinions freely. They were friendly and festive. And that is obvious in the videos. It is obvious from the lack of death of any law officers, obvious from no arrests for rebellion or sedition or treason. It is obvious from the FBI report.

You imagine they felt like your Nazi Democrats, burning flags and attacking Innocents, forever outraged and perpetually the victims.

This is why with a straight face you could call the Antifa/BLM riots "mostly peaceful" and call Jan 6th "angry".

I trumped you with evidence you could not address. And as always, you used Ad-hom is a debate tool. You are well know on this board as a hack. One who runs away from questions and is quick to be hyocritical.

When you can address my points, come back and we'll talk. Till then, you can rot in your TDS. Dart is not your safe space. It's for adults.
#108
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
There is a tremendous amount of projection in that post. But having said that, I think you've misunderstood. I'm not calling you a dishonest partisan hack because it's a replacement of an argument. I'm calling you a dishonest partisan hack because you've demonstrated that you are a dishonest partisan hack. If your eyes are sliding past my actual arguments, that's between you and your maker.
#109
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Yeah liberal TDS sufferer, you're always right and your perception is reality. Antifa is a peaceful organization and Biden is lucid.

Your hypocrasy is still sickening.

#110
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
It's not that I'm always right in the slightest. It's that you veer off so far from logic or sensibilities that in the end, you haven't actually addressed anything and you wander off screeching random conservative positions.
#111
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
The baker said he would make a cake just not one depicting a gay wedding, service was not refused. Its no different than asking a baker to make a cake shaped like a dick or some other depiction the baker finds inappropriate.. The photographer did not refuse service he declined because it involved a gay wedding, again same scenario. Both parties were sued using the judicial system to force them or pay heavy fines, which they did. Also they were publicly persecuted by the news media.. But what ever, you find no fault in forcing people using the gun barrel of govt (THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM)  to cow tow to what they believe patently immoral and perverted
SO the baker said he wouldn't make a gay wedding cake, but didn't refuse service? Didn't he refuse to make a cake celebrating a gay couple's wedding? You're right, it's no different than refusing to make a cake shaped like a dick...BOTH ARE REFUSING SERVICE. For different reasons, one of which comes with legal questions (the gay wedding vis a vis discrimination laws), but both are services the baker is refusing to render. The photographer declined to photograph a gay wedding, you're right, same scenario: SERVICES REFUSED. Yes, both people were sued, by their fellow citizens. What other legal recourse do you think they have or should have when they feel they're being discriminated against illegally? They have to take the issue to court. That's not "using the gun barrel of government," it's availing yourself of your rights as an American citizen. They were not forced to pay heavy fines, either. 

I ask again: how was the Government involved in persecuting these two? Obviousl legal system is part of small g government, but it's not the Government bringing the cases, it's people. 

And one more time, I don't think they should have been forced to do anything they didn't want to do. THey're private business owners. They're not outside their legal rights to refuse service for any reason at all. But that also means they're not immune to repercussions from the private sector either. Can't cry about other citizens using their rights, either, that includes their right to assemble and protest, or their right to exercise free speech by telling anyone who'll listen they think you're a bigot, or starting their own business next door that takes away business from you because they'll serve whoever can pay. Again, no government involvement at all there. It's starting to sound like conservatives just kinda want the right to be the only asshole in the room wherever they go, and aren't really about principled conservative thought at all, if you ask me. 
#112
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,174
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
You just keep fucking talking in circles. I have explained it till I am blue in the fucking face. You will never get it, You just keep equating forcing someone to do what they believe to be immoral or perverted as refusing service. Again you will never grasp the concept.
#113
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
forcing someone to do what they believe to be immoral or perverted as refusing service.
What were these people forced to do, exactly? 

I'd say you're making a distinction without a difference, but you're not really even making a distinction: they decided they were not comfortable rendering their services. It's pretty simple man, I don't know what 'concept' you're talking about.  

And what exactly would you suggest their legal recourse be if they were discriminated against illegally, if not the "gun barrel of the government" AKA civil court?
#114
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,174
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
"What were these people forced to do, exactly?"  I told you 5 times and you still don't get it. Just forget we ever had this conversation. There is nothing I can say that will enable  you to understand. I have run out of ways to explain it to you. You just keep equating any refusal to engage in, partake in or make things that people find offensive immoral or perverted as refusing service. Just move on, you don't get it and never will.


Here I will try one more time but I think it is still  hopeless. Suppose you go to a photographer and ask him to take pictures of you while you take a shit in your back yard. If he refuses and says it's disgusting and gross, has he refused service? Now using that scenario apply it to a baker who does not want to make a cake depicting a gay marriage or a photographer who does not want to take pictures at a gay wedding. Now enter you who sues for refusing service costing the baker and the photographer thousands in legal fees and public condemnation because they don't want to cater to your demands because they find them disgusting immoral or perverted.

Topic's author
#115
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
That is your biased interpretation. I have evidence that the crowd WAS friendly and festive, you want to focus on one tiny thing and interpret the entire crowd by it, ignoring all the other evidence.
Ok, so you have evidence that the crowd was friendly and festive, we have evidence that the crowd was lawless and dangerous. How do we resolve this difference?

I trumped you with evidence you could not address. And as always, you used Ad-hom is a debate tool. You are well know on this board as a hack. One who runs away from questions and is quick to be hyocritical.
Are you any different? If so, you can demonstrate that by responding to post 90, which must have slipped by you.
#116
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
Suppose you go to a photographer and ask him to take pictures of you while you take a shit in your back yard. If he refuses and says it's disgusting and gross, has he refused service? 
YES.

Now enter you who sues for refusing service costing the baker and the photographer thousands in legal fees and public condemnation because they don't want to cater to your demands because they find them disgusting immoral or perverted.

I wouldn't sue them, you continue to miss. Legal fees aren't the problem at hand, sorry, that's a different issue. Public condemnation has nothing to do with the government, we can agree, right? And one more time, in my book they are within their legal rights to refuse service for any reason or none. 

I am just pointing out that the government had nothing to do with whatever the repercussions ended up being. THat was their community. 
#117
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
It's not that I'm always right in the slightest.
You aren't. But boy do you think you are! You will presume to decide for others what's relevant, you will
describe the argument of others and pretend your description is reality, you totally act as if your perception is actual reality.

This is why Liberals want all details and context removed. Because reality shames them. So in our discussion you've regressed to no position at all except, "The crowd chanted."

You run from your hypocrasy of calling an actually violent crowd, "mostly peaceful" while calling the peaceful crowd, violent. So when I mention your hypocrasy, you squeal that I'm "veering".

You cant even say what the crowd was, only what it was "not". You can't address the lack of any arrests for attempted murder, rebellion, insurrection, or treason. You can't mention Pelosi or her role as capitol police boss, you can't mention the FBI report on the events on the date we are discussing. All of those things to you are, me "wandering off screeching."

You are a complete hypocrite. Probably, given your high intelligence, you are the most dishonest person on Dart. Other liberal partisan hacks can blame their relatively low IQ. You have no such excuse.
#118
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Ok, so you have evidence that the crowd was friendly and festive,...
We who? Your pal Dusty has backtracked to the single claim that the crowd chanted, "Hang Mike Spence!" And though he know this means the crowd was NOT friendly and festive, cannot say what the crowd WAS.

...we have evidence that the crowd was lawless and dangerous.
The same crowd? Because during the ruckus, there were people helping the police and discouraging people from breaking windows. Remember the democrat line that the looters were different from the "mostly peaceful demonstrators"?

How do we resolve this difference?
By answering questions put to us by the other. Only liars and demagogues dodge questions. The lack of answers, or the silliness of the answers offered, will quickly resolve the alleged difference.

For example, why was not a single person charged with rebellion, treason, sedition, or insurrection?

Why would a crowd bent on overthrow of the government come to the capitol building without weapons?

And why are you liberals ignoring the difference between your evaluations of the Jan 6th crowd and the Antifa/BLM riots? They expose your bias.

Like that, the issue would be resolved.
#119
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
You aren't. But boy do you think you are! You will presume to decide for others what's relevant, you will
describe the argument of others and pretend your description is reality, you totally act as if your perception is actual reality.

This is why Liberals want all details and context removed. Because reality shames them. So in our discussion you've regressed to no position at all except, "The crowd chanted."

You run from your hypocrasy of calling an actually violent crowd, "mostly peaceful" while calling the peaceful crowd, violent. So when I mention your hypocrasy, you squeal that I'm "veering".
I say your veering because calling me a hypocrite
1. Doesn't actually advance your argument (ad hom fallacy, whataboutism)
2. Factually incorrect for the reasoning you've provided anyway (where have I said an actually violent crowd is mostly peaceful?)

You cant even say what the crowd was, only what it was "not". You can't address the lack of any arrests for attempted murder, rebellion, insurrection, or treason. You can't mention Pelosi or her role as capitol police boss, you can't mention the FBI report on the events on the date we are discussing. All of those things to you are, me "wandering off screeching."
That's rather the process of arguments. You've listed several premises to lead you to the conclusion that there was no insurrection. So one way to address the conclusion is to tackle the premises one by one. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to engage with even just the one...
Topic's author
#120
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,279
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
By answering questions put to us by the other. Only liars and demagogues dodge questions
Awesome, so I guess that means you’re working on your response to post 90

For example, why was not a single person charged with rebellion, treason, sedition, or insurrection?
Because the law is not set up to deal with mobs and/or punish mob mentality.

No one is claiming that thousands of people all got together and planned who was going to beat police officers, who was going to break the windows, who was going to climb in, and who would make their way to the house and senate floors. That’s the wonderful thing about mobs, everyone gets to hide behind everyone else. The strength, threat and overall impact of a mob is not the product of any one individual, so you cannot hold any individual accountable for it.

But beyond that, why are you so obsessed with this one argument? Once again, the US Capitol was breached causing Congress to have to evacuate the building during the certification of the US Election. Why do you not care about that? You claim you’re not a partisan hack, but every time this is pointed out to you the only thing you’ve got in response are whataboutisms of the left. That’s the definition of a partisan hack.

It’s also worth noting that I’ve never made the claim that this was an inserrection, sedition, or treason, and as far as I can tell neither has anyone in this thread. You are not having an honest conversation, this is just a pathetic attempt to own the libs. Perhaps you’d be better served having an actual rational dialog with actual people who can then in turn give you their actual perspectives.

And why are you liberals ignoring the difference between your evaluations of the Jan 6th crowd and the Antifa/BLM riots? They expose your bias.
They’re not. You can find troves of examples of Democrats speaking out against the riots, including a speech by Joe Biden making his position clear. NYC Democrats just nominated a cop to be their next mayor. You think the left is so crazy because the crazy are the only ones you pay attention to.

Contrast this with the right. Name one prominent republican who is speaking out against this. Hint: there are none. The dear leader of the party clearly sides with them, right wing news anchors have made those arrested out to be the victims, and the party has stood firm in the way of even investigating it. The two sides are not equal.

But here’s the thing… none of that matters in this thread. You are the one who stated loudly, clearly, and proudly that when you look at January 6th you see Trump supporters taking selfies with police officers and officers holding the doors for them as they were invited in to the Capitol. That was your post. That’s what we’re talking about. This discussion isn’t about Antifa and/or BLM. It’s about your claim. About your viewpoint that you chose to express… on a debate site. Are you ever going to defend it?