World War Three?

[CivilDiscourse]

Read the actual articles seanD listed.

I asked you. You seem very keen to not actually provide any answer in your own words.

[Mountain Man]

What do you want to prove?

Presumably you think the article you quoted proves something. So my question is, what do you think is proven by Russian propaganda taking Carlson out of context?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Presumably you think the article you quoted proves something. So my question is, what do you think is proven by Russian propaganda taking Carlson out of context?

It demonstrates that Carlson is being used as a useful idiot by Russian propaganda.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I asked you. You seem very keen to not actually provide any answer in your own words.

Rather like your good-self.

I recommend you read the articles and see if they actually relate to your question.

[CivilDiscourse]

Rather like your good-self.

I recommend you read the articles and see if they actually relate to your question.

No. I ask you.

Let's ignore your derail. I'm going to assume, for sake of argument, that Tucker is a Russian Propagandist on Fox news. What's the crime? It may be distasteful, it may be unethical, but what is the actual crime committed? What exactly will the DOJ investigate him for?

[Sparko]

Perhaps [given your self appointed position as an expert] you could comment on the following.


Sparko wrote this to me




To which I replied with this:

If there is no God and we are just animals then everything we do is natural”. That is your opinion but it does not follow that your opinion is right.

You also appear to be engaging in subjectivism, the notion that right and wrong are entirely relative to each person’s subjective preference. Hence if Hitler thought exterminating eleven million people was acceptable, why should we object?

I was not "arguing" by weblink. You asked a question concerning "crimes against humanity" and I provided a site that answers that question.

My emphasis.

Sparko has also made these comments







None of which seanD did with his reply which consisted of his opinions and some weblinks. He provided no "summary of what the point is being made by the link".

1. I asked you a question and you gave me simply a link and said "this will answer your questions" - THAT IS ARGUMENT BY WEBLINK. Rather than answering me you let a weblink do your arguing for you. Had you quoted the relevant parts of that site and gave a link, that would be fine. What Sean did was not argument by weblink. If you had made an actual argument to me and then gave a link for more info, that would be fine. Which is what Sean did.

Now, you are indeed arguing moderation, and if you continue, you need to take it to the padded room and start a thread there. Don't continue it here.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

1. I asked you a question and you gave me simply a link and said "this will answer your questions" - THAT IS ARGUMENT BY WEBLINK. Rather than answering me you let a weblink do your arguing for you. Had you quoted the relevant parts of that site and gave a link, that would be fine. What Sean did was not argument by weblink. If you had made an actual argument to me and then gave a link for more info, that would be fine. Which is what Sean did.

Now, you are indeed arguing moderation, and if you continue, you need to take it to the padded room and start a thread there. Don't continue it here.

Pertinent comment from a previous post

However, I have made my point and see no further reason to continue this exchange.

I am therefore at a loss to know why you deemed it necessary to comment.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No. I ask you.

Let's ignore your derail. I'm going to assume, for sake of argument, that Tucker is a Russian Propagandist on Fox news. What's the crime? It may be distasteful, it may be unethical, but what is the actual crime committed? What exactly will the DOJ investigate him for?

If you are unwilling to read the articles, we are at an impasse.

[Gondwanaland]

I would remind you that arguing by weblink is when someone posts or responds with merely a weblink. I.E. an empty post except for a weblink. Yet again you seem confused. And you are arguing about moderation....which has been pointed out to you is against the rules.

An example would be as follows:

Poster A: <Argument>
Poster B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

That's not what I was informed by staff (CP a year or two ago, IIRC): If you post the weblink and quote from it, it is not argument by weblink (on the other hand, what SeanD did appears to be closer to argument by weblink that I was told not to do, as he just posted links and didn't quote any relevant passages from them.

Sounds like Staff needs to clarify in the rules what precisely constitutes 'argument by weblink', and amongst one another because if that's argument by weblink then it seems staff itself is confused among themselves.

[Mountain Man]

It demonstrates that Carlson is being used as a useful idiot by Russian propaganda.

No, it demonstrates that the Russian government is taking his comments out of context for their own purposes. According to the article you posted, the Russian memo says, "It is essential to use as much as possible fragments of broadcasts..."

[CivilDiscourse]

If you are unwilling to read the articles, we are at an impasse.

The only impasse is you being unwilling to actually answer the question put to you.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, it demonstrates that the Russian government is taking his comments out of context for their own purposes. According to the article you posted, the Russian memo says, "It is essential to use as much as possible fragments of broadcasts..."

It demonstrates that Carlson is a useful idiot.

[Ronson]

While not technically constituting a crime [given that prior to the end of 1941 the USA was not actually at war] in what manner do you think Kaltenbach's pre war broadcasts assisted the situation?

I have no idea. Since the US was not at war with anyone, he could have made the exact same broadcasts in the US that he did in Germany. I assume he wasn't calling for the overthrow of the US government, so they were simply his opinions about politics and about joining a European war.

I realize Germans have a different view of free speech than Americans so there is not going to be much agreement here.

[Gondwanaland]

1. I asked you a question and you gave me simply a link and said "this will answer your questions" - THAT IS ARGUMENT BY WEBLINK. Rather than answering me you let a weblink do your arguing for you. Had you quoted the relevant parts of that site and gave a link, that would be fine. What Sean did was not argument by weblink. If you had made an actual argument to me and then gave a link for more info, that would be fine. Which is what Sean did.

Now, you are indeed arguing moderation, and if you continue, you need to take it to the padded room and start a thread there. Don't continue it here.

Okay, at this point it looks like Staff doesn't even understand what argument by weblink is.

A year ago, Cowpoke, posted in the exact same manner as Hypatia: a link followed by a quote box with text from the link.

I accused him of arguing via weblink, and he told me that it was not argument by weblink because he had provided a box below the link quoting it which "show(ed) what that link was all about.". He did it several times with several links in the thread and informed me that I was ignorant of TWeb rules if I thought that was argument by weblink.

Now here, Hypatia does the EXACT same thing that Cowpoke did, and you're telling us that it is argument via weblink.

Time for Staff to make the 'rule' actually clear in the rules, and figure out amongst yourselves what argument by weblink actually is, because right now it looks like "stuff I get to do when it suits me, but stuff I can smack others for when they annoy me", to me. That or no one on staff actually agrees what it means which makes the rule rather useless and arbitrary.

This ain't arguing with moderation, this is asking y'all to make up your dang minds and make the rule less vague than it is (it's extremely vague).

[Mountain Man]

It demonstrates that Carlson is a useful idiot.

I don't see how someone's comments being taken out of context makes them a "useful idiot".