Why don't you logically justify your claim that I am using a strawman argument, instead of just throwing a fancy word out there because you think that it makes you sound sophisticated?Admiral Breetai wrote:
SWSt I'm calling you to task address his opinion and debunk his argument and don't cowardly run and hide behind strawman arguments or I'll report you for deliberately and dishonestly ignoring another posters point something you have been banned for recently
do it..or else
No, the modern conservative viewpoint is "lower government spending unless if it's to protect the right, fund big armies, quash science, support 'traditional family values' or keep gays from getting more rights!"no modern conservative view point is "stop subsidizing the poor creating an entire class of resentful useless fucks who think the world owes them and completely loose their volition or incentive to contribute to society in any meaningful way"
Please rephrase your statement in a more readable fashion. What I got from this was "There are lots of Cuban immigrants that are desperate to escape and don't want any financial support", which is self contradictory.and you know what? it's pretty cold but their not wrong I live in a city that was more or less made what it is in terms of being a major center for politics money and tourism globally because of Cuban refugees that have been immigrated here constantly since the fifties and you know what? they're all desperate to escape that the mere thought of any aid or financial support from other peoples money in tax money is..disgusting to them and they may have a point
You just don't get the fallacy, do you? Donner's logic is this:
which you should probably stop committing almost every time you post
1. Your statement is subjective.
2. Therefore, it is not valid.
Notice how this argument can be used to disprove anything?
Red herring on your part, as my point was entirely related to the past history of conservatism and its poor track record. This may seem like a surprise to you, but when examining the track record of something, you have to look at the past.
this is an enormous distortion Conservatives from decades to centuries ago voted for this no modern conservative supports slavery...you harping on this is an absolute and distasteful dodge and redherring on your part
Clearly you are not reading my post correctly. Show me where in that section of my posts I mentioned or alluded to the board in a negative light. No, you can't, you just sprout things that have nothing to do with the point that I'm making. Let me phrase my point in simpler words:so in the mist of all this nearly schizophrenic rambling did you have anything that resembled a point other then to insult half the forum and mock a good chunk of the political world? because you basically are trolling here.
As long as you agree with 1 and 2, my argument stands. 1 is a fact, so it's difficult for you to hypothetically argue against. 2 is technically not a fact, but next to nobody in the modern world disagrees with slavery being inherently immoral. If they do, then I can elaborate on and logically justify my corollary. Otherwise, trying to invalidating my argument by calling it subjective (when all arguments are by definition subjective) is a fallacy.
Why are modern conservatives suddenly different from old conservatives? They still follow the same mindset and ideology, an ideology that's been proven to not work time and time again. It's like somebody arguing that a communism doesn't work by pointing to the USSR, and then you complaining that they're "distorting" things because they used an "old" example.
based on a heavily distorted representation of their views based on you deliberately dishonestly bringing up something that has almost not relevance to modern conservatives
Specific policies have changed (modern conservatives would actually be extremely liberal by old times; proof that reality has a liberal bias, as over time the world view shifts to the left) but their ideological stance and mindset has not. Logic and morals in terms of strict right and wrong don't magically change over a few centuries, merely our perception of them.
Feel free to try. The fact is that all of the long term goals of "radical" liberals; abolition of slavery, civil rights, woman's suffrage, etc have come to pass, while the conservative goal was to keep the status quo. By definition, conservatism is against progress ("conservative"; go look up the definition), and therefore when progress inevitably occurs, the conservatives get stuck on the wrong side of history.
you wanna talk about all the things Liberals have fucked up over the last century? iz a long list my brotha!
Notice a common trend in history? There will be X. X could be a group of people, a new concept, a new science, etc, but it will be "different" from tradition and different from "normal" people. The Liberals will always support X, while the conservatives will always oppose X. In the end, X will be granted a chance and/or civil liberties, and then the cycle continues, as another X comes around.
X's in history include Galileo's ideas, Evolution, Minorities, Child Labor protection laws, abolition of slavery, Civil Rights and Gay rights.