You argue with the intent to win, not discuss. You ignore counterpoints and just restate how your belief is correct. Your point is clear, but you act like no one else’s point has any merit because their “argument immediately fails”
Allowing the current administration to take control, either by voting Trump, third party, or abstaining, allowed the acceleration of the genocide and the cruelty… as well as accelerating the suffering/cruelty of other at-risk populations
But you will pick my argument apart based on how I “argued wrong” and act as if I don’t see your point… while simultaneously ignoring mine and restating yours with more words
It’s divisive and hardlined, and you don’t allow space for discussion with understanding. Your point is clear, is more than meritful, and I agree that the democrats were active participants. My point is that allowing Trump to lead his cult from the Oval Office again, is more damaging than the pushover Democrats. And that damage will be more destructive and harder to repair. And Palestinians still suffer, with even more gusto now, and every avenue to help stop it is being rapidly cut off
Does my point have merit? Is there any middle ground that you can see? Or do you prefer a factioned populace of opinions that stirs divisiveness, and allows a unified fascism to grab more ground… rather than allowing a discussion that may not end in agreement, but may allow a sense of comradery
You argue with the intent to win, not discuss. You ignore counterpoints and just restate how your belief is correct.
No. That’s you.
Your point is clear, but you act like no one else’s point has any merit because their “argument immediately fails”
This is a false assertion, and I don’t know why you put the last bit in quotes.
Allowing the current administration to take control, either by voting Trump, third party, or abstaining, allowed the acceleration of the genocide
No. It didn’t. You were just unwilling to admit the scope of the genocide when it was your team doing it. This why I find these lesser evil arguments unconvincing: because they always come from people who consistently deny the evil of their side.
But you will pick my argument apart based on how I “argued wrong” and act as if I don’t see your point… while simultaneously ignoring mine and restating yours with more words
Again, this is a false assertion, and I don’t know why you put part of it in quotes.
It’s divisive and hardlined, and you don’t allow space for discussion with understanding.
Again, no, that’s you.
Your point is clear, is more than meritful, and I agree that the democrats were active participants.
And yet you seem very unhappy about me disagreeing with the person denying they were active participants.
My point is that allowing Trump to lead his cult from the Oval Office again, is more damaging than the pushover Democrats.
Maybe, but it remains the case that opposition to the democratic party because they are actively genocidal is not just “purity testing”.
Palestinians still suffer, with even more gusto now, and every avenue to help stop it is being rapidly cut off
No. Again: lesser evil arguments are very unconvincing if they come from people who consistently downplay their sides evil.
Does my point have merit? Is there any middle ground that you can see? Or do you prefer a factioned populace of opinions that stirs divisiveness, and allows a unified fascism to grab more ground… rather than allowing a discussion that may not end in agreement, but may allow a sense of comradery
Right back at you, mate. You spent more words attacking me then actually making a point.
MrShankles@reddthat.com 19 hours ago
You argue with the intent to win, not discuss. You ignore counterpoints and just restate how your belief is correct. Your point is clear, but you act like no one else’s point has any merit because their “argument immediately fails”
Allowing the current administration to take control, either by voting Trump, third party, or abstaining, allowed the acceleration of the genocide and the cruelty… as well as accelerating the suffering/cruelty of other at-risk populations
But you will pick my argument apart based on how I “argued wrong” and act as if I don’t see your point… while simultaneously ignoring mine and restating yours with more words
It’s divisive and hardlined, and you don’t allow space for discussion with understanding. Your point is clear, is more than meritful, and I agree that the democrats were active participants. My point is that allowing Trump to lead his cult from the Oval Office again, is more damaging than the pushover Democrats. And that damage will be more destructive and harder to repair. And Palestinians still suffer, with even more gusto now, and every avenue to help stop it is being rapidly cut off
Does my point have merit? Is there any middle ground that you can see? Or do you prefer a factioned populace of opinions that stirs divisiveness, and allows a unified fascism to grab more ground… rather than allowing a discussion that may not end in agreement, but may allow a sense of comradery
Am I wrong, or are you just right?
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 19 hours ago
No. That’s you.
This is a false assertion, and I don’t know why you put the last bit in quotes.
No. It didn’t. You were just unwilling to admit the scope of the genocide when it was your team doing it. This why I find these lesser evil arguments unconvincing: because they always come from people who consistently deny the evil of their side.
Again, this is a false assertion, and I don’t know why you put part of it in quotes.
Again, no, that’s you.
And yet you seem very unhappy about me disagreeing with the person denying they were active participants.
Maybe, but it remains the case that opposition to the democratic party because they are actively genocidal is not just “purity testing”.
No. Again: lesser evil arguments are very unconvincing if they come from people who consistently downplay their sides evil.
Right back at you, mate. You spent more words attacking me then actually making a point.