Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
World War Three?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
What do you want to prove?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
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 ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
I asked you. You seem very keen to not actually provide any answer in your own words.
I recommend you read the articles and see if they actually relate to your question."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
Rather like your good-self.
I recommend you read the articles and see if they actually relate to your question.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
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:
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIf 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View 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.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
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?"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
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
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.Last edited by Gondwanaland; 03-15-2022, 07:54 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
It demonstrates that Carlson is being used as a useful idiot by Russian propaganda.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
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 ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
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 realize Germans have a different view of free speech than Americans so there is not going to be much agreement here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
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.
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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
It demonstrates that Carlson is a useful idiot.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:42 AM
|
10 responses
56 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 10:24 AM
|
2 responses
36 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 10:51 AM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Today, 10:22 AM
|
4 responses
43 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 05:51 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 01:08 PM
|
46 responses
241 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 01:54 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:14 AM
|
186 responses
841 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Today, 06:23 PM
|
Comment