Searching for answers

So, let me get this straight, because I’m really trying to believe the Republicans aren’t the party of hypocrisy they seem to be.

Capitalism rules the day. It’s the American Dream. Corporations are people and they should have the right to exercise free commerce and excel at making money. Unless we run out of something or a corporation grows predictably too fast and massively. Then we need government to get us what we want.

Hands off autonomy and liberty of one’s life. Unless you don’t like Roe v. Wade, and then you’d like the government to regulate its citizens’ bodies and personal choices. At least half of them, anyway.

Can’t tell a citizen where to wave a flag, what gun to own, can’t make them wear a mask or get vaccinated. Liberty is absolute and these colors don’t run and ‘Murica. Unless you find something foreign or icky and then you’d like the government to be able to investigate private citizens for their gender identities and whether they’re bring “abused.”

Out of one side of your mouth you mock, denigrate and criticize a man you can’t even call president, and then you scream out to him for not satisfying your whims.

If anyone has an answer that isn’t deflection, defensive, a strawman or some other logical fallacy, I’d love to hear it. Feel free to constructively point out the weaknesses among the Democratic Party. Not as a game of tit-for-tat but in the spirit of beginning discussion that rises above the grade school playground.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

DavidT8899 · 22-25, M

Unfortunately,a constructive conversation with you on these issues is impossible since everything on your post had the honesty,truthfulness and depth of someone from the grade school playground.

ShadowSister · 46-50, F

@DavidT8899 Name calling does not constitute an argument.

And lest you think I am simply siding with her, read my own comment on this post. I was critical of what she said. At least she pointed out concrete issues and referenced specific facts. All you did was label her argument as lacking so you could dismiss it. If that is the level of your engagement, why even bother comment at all?

DavidT8899 · 22-25, M

@ShadowSister No,she DIDNT "point out concrete issues and reference specific facts";she simply rambled out a list of vauge generalities that were at best one-sided and at worst patently false.And when did I ever call her any type of name in my response?I attacked her statement;I never insulted her personally.But you are right on the money on one point:I never should have bothered commenting on such an immature rant.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@DavidT8899 This is precisely the response is expect from you, which is why you're not included in the discussion.

ShadowSister · 46-50, F

@DavidT8899

...someone from the grade school playground.

I suppose you could argue you're not "technically" calling names, but it's the semantic equivalent. And yes, I realize she ended her post with the same words. She was referring to nonspecific people who would read her post and refuse to engage; you directed it specifically back to her as an individual. AND you refused to engage.

For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right and she's completely wrong. If that was the case, I would want to side with you. But how could I? I can imagine it now...

"At first I felt like Graylight made some good points that I agreed with. But then some guy on the internet said that he thought her argument lacked honesty, truthfulness, and depth. Suddenly I realized how foolish I've been all this time, and I've become a Republican now."

Come on, dude. Seriously?

I know you think you have made really excellent points in your own mind. But if you want the rest of us to follow you, you actually need to engage with the points themselves. That's how dialog works. The only vague generality I have seen in the discussion so far has come from you.

she simply rambled out a list of vauge generalities that were at best one-sided and at worst patently false.

Really? Where? Which points? Why do you think they weren't sufficient? Because merely asserting that your opponent is wrong does not constitute an argument.

If you can't even make your case to me, and I was critical of her post, how could you ever possibly hope to convince anyone else?

DavidT8899 · 22-25, M

@ShadowSister I acknowledge that it was a mistake for me to ever reply to her.Not because I now think Im wrong;I know Im right.Not because a dont have specific facts to back up my words;I could give a laundry list that would dissect every stupid comment she made.Ive been in that situation and Ive done exactly that.Its just that from doing that in the past,I realize it wont change her mind or get her to see things with logic and common sense;she'll just continue to cling to her stupidity against all reason.Been there,done that and Im not doing it again.Like I said,it was a mistake for me to even respond.I should've known better.And FYI:Dont assume that Im a hardcore Republican.Just because they're light-years above the opposing party doesnt at all make them saints.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@DavidT8899 We agree not to assume anything until you learn your primary language sufficiently. If this is how your thoughts are presented in a cohesive and complete manner in type, I can only imagine the bee hive in your head.

When you elevate to a level wherein you discuss ideas and events rather than swimming around in the muck, you may find better responses. I don't have to prove to you or use you to prove to myself I'm worthy. My actual life handles that nicely. You tell yourself whatever you need to, but if you come at me with this kind of thing, you'll get an appropriate response.

DavidT8899 · 22-25, M

@Graylight Likewise,I certainly don't have to prove anything to YOU or use YOU to prove myself worthy.Please dont post anything to me anymore;I dont want to waste my time with your likes.