Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

I would love to hear what EJ would have said, but they are just repeating themselves. Like I already said, the monopoly analogy was only meant to demonstrate that two wrongs can make a right. It wasn't meant to apply to the abortion issue. But they wanted it to so I'm working with it. I then pointed out that the republican party isn't actually trying to save lives, so the analogy doesn't apply to them, and then they just repeat themselves saying that the analogy works. I made another analogy to WW2 just in case they decided not to engage with the argument. And they didn't.

[hector13]

He’s saying your analogy works for the anti-abortion position as well, that was it

You were the one that didn’t acknowledge that, and then you take it as him supporting the Republican position of being shitty to poor people, even though all he said was your analogy works in a way you didn’t see. Then when he pointed out that all he was saying was your analogy was weak, you essentially call him a Nazi.

Like, wtf dude.

[Micro102]

No I mentioned the republican position of getting people killed. And I wouldn't say EJ supports it, but they sure are accepting lies about it at face value, ignoring the wild amounts of contradictory evidence against it. Which is why I made that analogy about Hitler. We can all agree that Hitler said he was doing the right thing, but clearly wasn't. We can do this because we can detect hypocrisy and call people liars. 

Let me make this more clear to the analogy:

"You are playing a game of monopoly. Your opponent is cheating. If you lose, someone is going to die. If you win, your opponent says someone is going to die and that is why they are cheating, but as they are saying so, they shoot someone in the chest. Therefore cheating in the same way is good even though it's a "wrong". In fact, you are morally obligated to cheat. Not cheating would be the wrong thing to do." (and for those who want to try and force the analogy as "both sides" again, the analogy emphasizes how one side has unverified "beliefs" and is a hypocrite about them, and one side sees people actually dying in front of them)

EJ seems to be arguing that because someone could hold the position that abortion is murder, they can justify breaking the rules because to them they care about saving lives. I'm pointing out that they don't actually care about saving lives because they actively do things that kill people. EJ then ignores what I say and repeats themselves. At this point, I would say you are putting words in their mouth, hector13. I want to see what EJ has to say about the paragraphs they ignored.

[hector13]

The problem isn’t your position or how clear the analogy was.

Again, EJ was arguing your initial analogy could be used to justify the anti-abortion position of religious conservatives. He wasn’t agreeing with or accepting that position, which is why he repeated it and didn’t engage with you when you appeared to make the argument he was accepting that position.

[Micro102]

And I argued that it couldn't be used to justify their actions because they don't actually want to save lives, therefore the analogy doesn't apply. I gave another analogy as to why you can't just assume honesty in the words of bad faith actors by pointing to WW2. EJs response was to take offense that I didn't quote a wall of text, and then just go "no it applies". By refusing to address these arguments and just declaring victory, I now have to assume that they flat out disagree with them until they say otherwise, hence me making that sarcastic spiel about how Hitler said he was a good boy and how we should totally believe him. We can apply it to Russia too. Putin said he was getting rid of Nazis. The analogy of cheating to save lives can be used to justify his actions because he "believes" he is getting rid of Nazis. It doesn't apply because their actions state that they don't care about saving people from the Nazis. They bomb them.

I don't know if EJ misread my comment or anything like that because Im waiting for them to respond to my Hitler hypothetical. There is no point in assuming what they think
until they themselves clarify it.

[McTraveller]

The contrived Monopoly example is ill-formed anyway.  I mean why would the game be considered valid in the first place if party A cheated and party B didn't? If whoever is overseeing the game would consider party A cheating to be a win, then why would you expect the overseer to honor the result of the game if party B also cheated?

In other words, if "cheating" is already part of the game, then there isn't even such a thing as cheating - and in fact you can't even trust the administrators. So you're actually more wrong to participate in the game in the first place, and instead you work directly to stop the unwanted event instead of playing some ill-conceived game.

[Frumple]

... in unrelated news, apparently some members of the GOP are threatening to (try to) reduce the federal copyright duration (on basically Disney, specifically, huffpo link for details), as retaliation for Disney not supporting anti-LGBT legislation down in florida.

And I'm, just, like. No, no, please go on. Do something useful for once in your lives, GOP :V

Zero chance of it happening, for like a dozen different reasons, but shit, c'mon you damn cowards, kneecap the copyright duration, woke tech companies would hate that!

[None]

This week, Hawley introduced a bill to shorten the duration of federal copyright protection. The measure would apply retroactively only for firms with a market capitalization above $150 billion that operate in the motion picture industry.

Basically, companies like Disney.

Goddamnit. That is woefully, horribly, narrowly targeted. Not that I could expect them to stand for anything that isn't frivolous retaliation, but I got hopeful for a sliver of a second that maybe they were going to do something helpful for everyone else in their petulant crusade.

[LordBaal]

That is why I only use Gigan Ninja Robot analogies.

[MaxTheFox]

He’s saying your analogy works for the anti-abortion position as well, that was it

You were the one that didn’t acknowledge that, and then you take it as him supporting the Republican position of being shitty to poor people, even though all he said was your analogy works in a way you didn’t see. Then when he pointed out that all he was saying was your analogy was weak, you essentially call him a Nazi.

Like, wtf dude.

I might at least partially agree with EJ on abortion but he indeed does support being shitty to poor people. He opposes welfare.

[EuchreJack]

He’s saying your analogy works for the anti-abortion position as well, that was it

You were the one that didn’t acknowledge that, and then you take it as him supporting the Republican position of being shitty to poor people, even though all he said was your analogy works in a way you didn’t see. Then when he pointed out that all he was saying was your analogy was weak, you essentially call him a Nazi.

Like, wtf dude.

I might at least partially agree with EJ on abortion but he indeed does support being shitty to poor people. He opposes welfare.

I would not say that I oppose all forms of welfare.
But I would say that Not Giving Poor People Money is not the same as "being shitty to poor people".

I should probably compile a response to Micro102.

[hector13]

He’s saying your analogy works for the anti-abortion position as well, that was it

You were the one that didn’t acknowledge that, and then you take it as him supporting the Republican position of being shitty to poor people, even though all he said was your analogy works in a way you didn’t see. Then when he pointed out that all he was saying was your analogy was weak, you essentially call him a Nazi.

Like, wtf dude.

I might at least partially agree with EJ on abortion but he indeed does support being shitty to poor people. He opposes welfare.

That’s not something that could be drawn from EJ’s argument with Micro, which was my point.

Micro seems to be willfully ignoring EJ’s point in favour of their own anti-Republican stance, which is fine, Republicans are by and large horrible, but it just bothers me when people argue past someone like that and then expect to be taken seriously by the other party.

Fakedit: I would ignore Micro if I were you EJ; while I don’t like the concept, they’re not engaging with you in good faith.

[MaxTheFox]

He’s saying your analogy works for the anti-abortion position as well, that was it

You were the one that didn’t acknowledge that, and then you take it as him supporting the Republican position of being shitty to poor people, even though all he said was your analogy works in a way you didn’t see. Then when he pointed out that all he was saying was your analogy was weak, you essentially call him a Nazi.

Like, wtf dude.

I might at least partially agree with EJ on abortion but he indeed does support being shitty to poor people. He opposes welfare.

I would not say that I oppose all forms of welfare.
But I would say that Not Giving Poor People Money is not the same as "being shitty to poor people".

I should probably compile a response to Micro102.

What forms do you support then?

[EuchreJack]

He’s saying your analogy works for the anti-abortion position as well, that was it

You were the one that didn’t acknowledge that, and then you take it as him supporting the Republican position of being shitty to poor people, even though all he said was your analogy works in a way you didn’t see. Then when he pointed out that all he was saying was your analogy was weak, you essentially call him a Nazi.

Like, wtf dude.

I might at least partially agree with EJ on abortion but he indeed does support being shitty to poor people. He opposes welfare.

I would not say that I oppose all forms of welfare.
But I would say that Not Giving Poor People Money is not the same as "being shitty to poor people".

I should probably compile a response to Micro102.

What forms do you support then?

Healthcare and housing, mostly. Food, obviously.

[Frumple]

That... seems to be sidestepping the question, there. It's possible (though largely worse for the first and there's other problems involved with the second) to cover all of that by just giving folks money. Iirc it even tends to cost less, as alternatives involve extra infrastructure and administration, generally for little direct benefit (and pretty common indirect downsides, as forcing time sinks and misery/confusion on folks having trouble generally doesn't exactly help them get out of it).