The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President

a reply to: introvert

Then you cannot read properly. I argued this:

“I love it when some journalist or pundit blames President Trump for the current polarization and divisiveness of politics, and the resultant stress, as if he had actually caused it. It reminds us that though some people would never admit to treating Trump like a god, they no less attribute to him mystical and god-like powers, blaming him as the source of their own anxieties. The problem with this nonsense is not just the irrational adherence to a variety of questionable causes and other fallacies, but that the true stressors in their life are hardly addressed, if addressed at all. “

The stressors are in fact the news. It’s why the APA recommends turning it off.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I argued this

Yes, I know. Repeating yourself does not give more weight to your argument, or lack thereof.

You are using the very argument against the media that you claim others use against Trump. The media does not have magical powers, or god-like if you will, and neither does Trump.

Each individual is responsible for their own individual "stressors", what triggers those "stressors" and how they respond to it, regardless of what they hear on the news or what Donald Trump says.

So your approach, which is more of a matter of changing the focus and not logic, appears to be contradictory.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
You are using the same logic as those blaming Trump for division, except your target is the media.

Big difference is the media is intentionally dividing us. Trump simply does it by being a douche.

The important part is how you let it effect you.
Defending the media is not earning you any points in the logic department...

a reply to: JAY1980

Big difference is the media is intentionally dividing us.

Do you have proof of this intent and what their goal in doing so is?

Trump simply does it by being a douche.

So he is dividing us as well. He just happens to go about it a different way?

Ok. Glad that is cleared up.

The important part is how you let it effect you. Defending the media is not earning you any points in the logic department...

Where did I defend the media? All I have done is point out the fallacious nature of the OP as a whole.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I argued this

Yes, I know. Repeating yourself does not give more weight to your argument, or lack thereof.

You are using the very argument against the media that you claim others use against Trump. The media does not have magical powers, or god-like if you will, and neither does Trump.

Each individual is responsible for their own individual "stressors", what triggers those "stressors" and how they respond to it, regardless of what they hear on the news or what Donald Trump says.

So your approach, which is more of a matter of changing the focus and not logic, appears to be contradictory.

You do not know, and pretending you do doesn’t help you in the slightest. I am not using the very same argument. You can quote me, or otherwise show me where I went wrong, because so far you’re making claims without backing it up, as usual.

Besides, the argument is that Trump is not the source of the political divide, something you seem to agree with.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It reminds us that though some people would never admit to treating Trump like a god, they no less attribute to him mystical and god-like powers, blaming him as the source of their own anxieties.

Interesting, very interesting choice of words......! And yes, I KNOW.

In as far as the media, and some very ignorant politicians are concerned, the media has an agenda that serves its "Owners". For the politicians they seem to remain willfully, ignorant to the same end.

The founding fathers never imagined their newly formed Republican government would be divided so quickly, by "Political" parties. Its just a simple fact that oil and water will never mix. ONE WILL ALWAYS RAISE TO THE TOP, OVER THE OTHER. Regardless, if its a good oil, or a good water. The Division will always remain. And yes, I can see that deeply! And going even deeper, the intelligent will always subjugate the less intelligent.

"The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President". True, very very true! The source of the divide goes back some 30,000 to 35,000 years according to science. It goes back to who we are, and are not, both, species.... Some were born to be oil, and some water, it cant be any simpler!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You do not know, and pretending you do doesn’t help you in the slightest.

What an odd statement. Of course I know what your argument was/is. What you quoted was in your OP, so I've already read it and I'm not sure why you think you had to post it again.

I am not using the very same argument. You can quote me, or otherwise show me where I went wrong, because so far you’re making claims without backing it up, as usual

I already did show you where you went wrong. The very same argument you make for Trump can logically be extended to those you are blaming, the media.

Does the media have magical powers that Trump does not?

Besides, the argument is that Trump is not the source of the political divide, something you seem to agree with.

I do agree with that. Where I disagree is you taking the very same illogical position you claim to be refuting in the OP and turning it back towards the media as being the cause of said divide.

Well, the media does not have magical powers. The media cannot force people to believe one thing or another, much like Trump cannot force people to become politically divided. People choose what they let divide them, correct?

Like I said earlier, your thread may look good on the surface and appeal to those that latch-on to shiny objects like a curious monkey, but at the heart of it your argument is illogical and just as fallacious as the arguments you claim to refute.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Trump is the poster boy for divisiveness. What have you been smoking?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What an odd statement. Of course I know what your argument was/is. What you quoted was in your OP, so I've already read it and I'm not sure why you think you had to post it again.

You don't know what my argument is, because you keep misrepresenting it, even now.

I already did show you where you went wrong. The very same argument you make for Trump can logically be extended to those you are blaming, the media.

Does the media have magical powers that Trump does not?

Again, you can quote me where I used the same logic. It should be easy.

I do agree with that. Where I disagree is you taking the very same illogical position you claim to be refuting in the OP and turning it back towards the media as being the cause of said divide.

Well, the media does not have magical powers. The media cannot force people to believe one thing or another, much like Trump cannot force people to become politically divided. People choose what they let divide them, correct?

Like I said earlier, your thread may look good on the surface and appeal to those that latch-on to shiny objects like a curious monkey, but at the heart of it your argument is illogical and just as fallacious as the arguments you claim to refute.

I blamed the media for their false reporting, for their outrage over comments, and for contributing to stress. All of which you dismissed with a hand wave. That's why your little retort is stupid both at heart, and on the surface.

You've brought up this fake "I know you are but what am I" argument before, but what you don't realize, either in a fit of arrogance or stupidity, is that doing so is itself a fallacy. It's called tu quoque.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Trump is the poster boy for divisiveness. What have you been smoking?

Statements made true by the sheer force of repetition.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I argued this

Yes, I know. Repeating yourself does not give more weight to your argument, or lack thereof.

You are using the very argument against the media that you claim others use against Trump. The media does not have magical powers, or god-like if you will, and neither does Trump.

Each individual is responsible for their own individual "stressors", what triggers those "stressors" and how they respond to it, regardless of what they hear on the news or what Donald Trump says.

So your approach, which is more of a matter of changing the focus and not logic, appears to be contradictory.

Thats wierd, someone should tell the CIA to stop wasting so much time, energy, resources, etc, influincing the media. Hey stupids at the cia, the media doesnt have magic powers!

It only has the attention of huge swaths of the population for Hours and Hours, at least half your waking hours you are within view, earshot, arms reach of radio stations playing in the car, tv on all day, magazines and billboards...

yeah, that has no influence whatsoever you cia jackasses!

Why cant people just, listen to Introvert more often!?

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Trump is the poster boy for divisiveness. What have you been smoking?

Who told you that? Where did you learn That from?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Let me give you a quote from one of your own threads to highlight exactly what I am talking about:

It is never the duty of the writer or publisher to weigh in advance the future possibility of violent reprisal for writing or speaking—it is always, and always will be, the duty of the offended to get over their feelings before they start beating people to death.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is another excerpt from one of your threads:

Unless someone is willing to evoke some sort of action at a distance, those who are offended by free speech are the perpetrators of their own pain. Even the most derogatory of insults cannot fly through the air impaling its victims. That old adage “the pen is mightier than the sword” is absurd when practiced literally. Anyone who has brought a pen to a sword fight will be left the only one bleeding.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I blamed the media for their false reporting, for their outrage over comments, and for contributing to stress. All of which you dismissed with a hand wave. That's why your little retort is stupid both at heart, and on the surface.

If you are to be consistent in your own logic, how can you blame the media for "contributing to stress" when your entire argument in many discussions has been that the onus of how one reacts to words in general is on the individual receiving it, not the person(s) exercising their free speech, such as Trump or the media?

So for you to say the media is responsible for the political divide, it is an act of superstitious belief on your part in which you attribute "magical powers" to the media.

Not to mention it appears that this thread directly contradicts specific ideals or narratives you have purposefully tried to push in other threads.

a reply to: introvert

So for you to say the media is responsible for the political divide, it is an act of superstitious belief on your part in which you attribute "magical powers" to the media.

You can quote me where I said the media was responsible for the political divide.

If you are to be consistent in your own logic, how can you blame the media for "contributing to stress" when your entire argument in many discussions has been that the onus of how one reacts to words in general is on the individual receiving it, not the person(s) exercising their free speech, such as Trump or the media?

Stress is a bodily response to perceived threats, whether real or imagined. The perceived threat in this case is the media's false portrayal of the president. That, and the analysis provided by the APA, is how I can blame the media for contributing for stress.

Not to mention it appears that this thread directly contradicts specific ideals or narratives you have purposefully tried to push in other threads.

It appears all you can do is cry foul without ever backing it up.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You can quote me where I said the media was responsible for the political divide.

Sure:

A far more accurate, less superstitious theory as to why the country is so divided was proposed by the man himself at a rally in Phoenix:...

This seems to me demonstrably true.

You said it's "demonstrably true".

Stress is a bodily response to perceived threats, whether real or imagined. The perceived threat in this case is the media's false portrayal of the president. That, and the analysis provided by the APA, is how I can blame the media for contributing for stress.

And in blaming the media you contradict yourself. I gave you two examples in which you clearly state the responsibility of how one reacts to words, etc, is on the person hearing the words.

Now you are trying to make the case that the responsibility is on the media for how others react to their words.

Well, which is it? You can't pick and choose because it fits your current narrative, when in the past you have taken a different position.

It appears all you can do is cry foul without ever backing it up.

I did back it up. With quotes and links, which you requested.

Stick your fingers in you ears and hum all you like. You clearly contradicted yourself and left it wide open for anyone to easily point out.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But don't the nation's leaders represent the nation and aren't they supposed to be exemplary models?

If that's the case, then Trump's chaotic moves (as with his changing views on immigration ) don't signal a consistent stance or policy. This back-and-forth has gone on since he was a candidate in 2016.

If a leader says one thing, then changes his mind, then changes it again... and again... is this leader not dividing the nation further by appearing to stand with one group and then another and repeatedly switching alliances? Doesn't that embolden each group when they have the leader's favor and make them more angry at the other group when they lose favor?

It sure doesn't seem to drive the average person towards coming to some sort of agreed middle ground with controversial issues.

a reply to: introvert

A far more accurate, less superstitious theory as to why the country is so divided was proposed by the man himself at a rally in Phoenix:...

This seems to me demonstrably true.

It is a far more accurate, far less superstitious theory. I argued that people get their information about Trump, whether true or otherwise, from the media. The media argues that it is Trump, and not them, that divides the country. I don't see any contradiction here.

And in blaming the media you contradict yourself. I gave you two examples in which you clearly state the responsibility of how one reacts to words, etc, is on the person hearing the words.

Now you are trying to make the case that the responsibility is on the media for how others react to their words.

Well, which is it? You can't pick and choose because it fits your current narrative, when in the past you have taken a different position.

I never blamed the media. Yes, how one reacts to words is his responsibility, not the media's. I never said it was otherwise, and that's why your claims of contradiction are false.

I did back it up. With quotes and links, which you requested.

Stick your fingers in you ears and hum all you like. You clearly contradicted yourself and left it wide open for anyone to easily point out.

That's not how it works. You've scoured my threads for signs of contradiction, but you are unable to show why its a contradiction.

a reply to: introvert

Stick your fingers in you ears and hum all you like.

Dude, seriously. This is the only way he debates. I've been around and around with this guy. The sooner you realize he is completely infallible (at least in his own mind), the sooner you can move on and have a peaceful day. Some people just cannot be spoken to.

As an example. He will not be able to resist replying to this regardless if I answer or not.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is a far more accurate, far less superstitious theory. I argued that people get their information about Trump, whether true or otherwise, from the media. The media argues that it is Trump, and not them, that divides the country. I don't see any contradiction here.

But it is your assertion that the media is responsible for the political divide and that it is "demonstrably true".

Ok. Just want to make sure that is understood because you seem confused, asking me to quote things you know you have asserted. Not sure why I have to remind you of the very things you yourself posted.

I never blamed the media.

Did you not write and read your own OP? How about this quote from another post you made in this thread:

I blamed the media for their false reporting, for their outrage over comments, and for contributing to stress.

Ya, you're blaming the media and trying to assert they are a source of political divide in this country, while in other threads you have made contradictory statements that place the responsibility and blame on those that act/react in a certain manner.

Yes, how one reacts to words is his responsibility, not the media's. I never said it was otherwise, and that's why your claims of contradiction are false.

If one is responsible for how they act or react, how can we state that it is "demonstrably true" that the media is the "source of the division in our country"?

The source of division would be in the hands of those that choose to become divided, who alone bear responsibility for their actions/reactions, correct?

Or does the media have magical powers that can force people to become divided through a tv, radio or computer screen?

That's not how it works. You've scoured my threads for signs of contradiction, but you are unable to show why its a contradiction.

I've shown exactly why it's a contradiction. You hold inconsistent beliefs and it's application depends upon the political narrative you are trying to push.

Not sure how I can make it easier for you to understand.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Excellent and well written, once again. Thanks for the pleasure. I can't say I ever agree with you, but I always love to read it.

This is me reating your stuff: