It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Unjustified Hatred of Donald Trump

page: 28
120
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They were truncated to show that any emotion as a result of Trumps media clips is unjustified. The same is true for words offered by journalists.

You don't see it because you want to feel that your ire against some journalists is justified. Have at it but, if you criticize others for doing the same thing to trump then you are being hypocritical.

Your original argument is sound. Your feelings against some journalists (the logic used to justify them) contradict the perfectly logically sound first argument and therefore is an example of your hypocrisy.

If it still isn't clear then we will all just take that as your own personal bias. Sorry but that is where logic takes us.

ETA: I would just like to point out how telling it is that you never really criticize members who post how "happy" Trump's words make them. Some might even say that they "love" him but I've yet to see you start a thread about how unjustified that might be.
edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Wrong again, and goal posts expanded. You cannot even say who is deserving of my ire correctly. I said the obsequious followers are deserving of our ire, which is fully justified. If you cannot even get this straight, and you have bent everything crooked to satisfy your poorly formed and irrelevant rebuttal up until now, what else can you offer? Sorry, but your logic has taken us nowhere.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Now this is irony, the way it is written it can be understood that both the journalists and their followers deserve your ire. According to the original argument, neither of them do so, this semantic nit pick doesn't make a difference anyway.

I actually keep saying the same thing in different ways.

Bored so, I will just leave it there.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Now this is irony, the way it is written it can be understood that both the journalists and their followers deserve your ire. According to the original argument, neither of them do so, this semantic nit pick doesn't make a difference anyway.

I actually keep saying the same thing in different ways.

Bored so, I will just leave it there.


Tu quoque, ad hominem, strawmen, expanding the goalpoasts, argumentum ad populum—all of it to push an irrelevant argument based on a misreading, that ended up being a complete failure. What a waste of time, friend.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Seems like you only understand what you want.

A misreading doesn't change the argument.

A while back, when it suited your fancy, you said this was all just entertainment so all we are really doing is wasting time.

ETA: I think I was able to show where you were being hypocritical but you don't agree. Of course, we are both biased. How exactly was this thing judged and deemed a failure, your opinion against mine?
edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



Seems like you only understand what you want.

A misreading doesn't change the argument.

A while back, when it suited your fancy, you said this was all just entertainment so all we are really doing is wasting time.

ETA: I think I was able to show where you were being hypocritical but you don't agree. Of course, we are both biased. How exactly was this thing judged and deemed a failure, your opinion against mine?


It sound like you're projecting. Your argument wasn't an argument for the exact reasons I stated, but now it is just "a misreading doesn't change the argument", while leaving the rest of the reasons untouched and dismissed. Yes, a misreading does change the argument.

It's not that I disagree, it's that you haven't shown where I was being hypocritical. Again—you are unable to quote my arguments in full and show where they are contradictory, hypocritical, or inconsistent, and you refuse to even try. Go to the op, copy and past the two arguments, and show how they are contradictory. It's easy, but you refuse to do it, relying instead on misrepresentation and fallacy.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, the old projecting accusation. Is it your opinion that I am projecting? If so, that is all it is.

Showing someone and them seeing it are both needed for successful communication.

I tried copy pasting the arguments and the rest but you went off on a semantics tangent so I will not try, again.

You have your opinion and you think that it is solid logic gold. Good for you. The entertainment value sure is waning.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Yes, the old projecting accusation. Is it your opinion that I am projecting? If so, that is all it is.

Showing someone and them seeing it are both needed for successful communication.

I tried copy pasting the arguments and the rest but you went off on a semantics tangent so I will not try, again.

You have your opinion and you think that it is solid logic gold. Good for you. The entertainment value sure is waning.



How else would you know what I want? Certainly not by asking. You must have invented it or projected it.

You never copy and pasted the argument. You copy and pasted an irrelevant clause, while excluding the rest of the argument, which just so happened to be the conclusion of the entire OP. Anyone can go look at your post to see it.

You said you were bored last time, and now the entertaining is waning, yet you keep returning. Perhaps you have a low standard of entertainment.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
How else would you know what I want? Certainly not by asking. You must have invented it or projected it.

I don't even know what you think was invented or projected. You certainly don't know what I meant, even though I stated it more than a few times.


You never copy and pasted the argument. You copy and pasted an irrelevant clause, while excluding the rest of the argument, which just so happened to be the conclusion of the entire OP. Anyone can go look at your post to see it.

Don't care to check but even if I didn't literally copy/paste, I addressed it in the sense that you wrote it, I think. Guess what, I am not as anal about words as you seem to be. Especially on entertainment webz.


You said you were bored last time, and now the entertaining is waning, yet you keep returning. Perhaps you have a low standard of entertainment.

Nothing better to do. Sad but true.

ETA: Come to think of it, I did copy/paste both arguments but you complained about them being incomplete. Always something to wiggle out of what you post.
edit on 31-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Still shows you to be a hypocrite one that refuses to see it also.
In my field of work we have a name for that.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So, you got nothin'.
We already knew that.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Come to think of it, I did copy/paste both arguments but you complained about them being incomplete. Always something to wiggle out of what you post.


You didn't. I wrote a paragraph-long sentence, and you quoted the hind-end in a technique called quote-mining. Quote them in full and prove your case, because you have yet to do so.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom




Still shows you to be a hypocrite one that refuses to see it also.
In my field of work we have a name for that.


You can't prove it, which shows you at best to be swayed by falsities, or at worst, to be a liar.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




It's not that I disagree, it's that you haven't shown where I was being hypocritical.


You are freaking unbelievable! Trolling at it's finest! I'll give you that.

You have been shown your hypocrisy many, many times in this thread, by many, many posters. Your hypocrisy is blinding! So blinding that you can't even see past your own nose!

Again, there is very little, if any, unjustified hatred for Trump. Trump brought on every single iota of criticism he receives by his own words and actions. They have bben memorialized on video and in print. There's no denying it.




edit on 1-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




You are freaking unbelievable! Trolling at it's finest! I'll give you that.

You have been shown your hypocrisy many, many times in this thread, by many, many posters. Your hypocrisy is blinding! So blinding that you can't even see past your own nose!

Again, there is very little, if any, unjustified hatred for Trump. Trump brought on every single iota of criticism he receives by his own words and actions. They have memorialized on video and in print. There's no denying it.


You've proven that you don't know what hypocrisy means, and that you are irrational insofar as you can only resort to fallacy.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You didn't. I wrote a paragraph-long sentence, and you quoted the hind-end in a technique called quote-mining. Quote them in full and prove your case, because you have yet to do so.

Yes, because the purpose of the quote was to show what I was addressing. I don't feel that there was any need to copy/paste the whole argument since we already knew what that was.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Yes, because the purpose of the quote was to show what I was addressing. I don't feel that there was any need to copy/paste the whole argument since we already knew what that was.


So how can the argument be contradictory if you didn't quote the argument?
edit on 1-11-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
So how can the argument be contradictory if you didn't quote the argument?

Are you arguing that your argument only exists if it is quoted? That is completely illogical.

I didn't even need to quote any part of it to address it?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


remember the john barron tape? makes me lol every time I think on it. guy calls the media to brag about himself. LOLOLOL.

yeah, no reason at all to dislike the guy, good lord, how condescending the op is.




edit on 1-11-2016 by knoxie because: nvm



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Are you arguing that your argument only exists if it is quoted? That is completely illogical.

I didn't even need to quote any part of it to address it?


No, I'm arguing that you will not quote my argument, that you are misrepresenting it as a straw man, and are appealing to hypocrisy to make your case.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join