Mr Trump threatens the lives of former presidents

Because the Albanians actually care about theit country. The Americans don't, Trump can just run it into the ground and they won't do a thing to stop him.

Albania is tiny & has a population smaller than many US cities. It's not some simple task to get hundreds of millions to coordinate on a single issue

Not if the issue is something everybone should care about. and IF Americans cared at all about their country, it would be easy to get them to coordinate on that issue.

About 70,000 albanians protes...

No they had a single demonstration of 250.000 people plus many more in many cities at the same time.

@greatJaromie said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Z2XyoIHi) > > Because the Albanians actually care about theit country. The Americans don't, Trump can just run it into the ground and they won't do a thing to stop him. > > Albania is tiny & has a population smaller than many US cities. It's not some simple task to get hundreds of millions to coordinate on a single issue Not if the issue is something everybone should care about. and IF Americans cared at all about their country, it would be easy to get them to coordinate on that issue. > About 70,000 albanians protes... No they had a single demonstration of 250.000 people plus many more in many cities at the same time.

garlic_bread_rucola

@Noflaps said ^

Violent protest in America is ludicrous.

Have you heard about protesting peacefully? I can google it for you if you need?

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/5TBJeOB5) > Violent protest in America is ludicrous. Have you heard about protesting peacefully? I can google it for you if you need?

notsoneutral edited

@Noflaps said ^

Accusing me, vaguely and repeatedly, of fallacious reasoning is not a personal attack? Oh. I see.

Coming from someone who wrote this isn't it ironic ?

When we understand something, we can generally put it into our own words.

I see says the blind man .

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/CFuFkVvl) > Accusing me, vaguely and repeatedly, of **fallacious reasoning is not a personal attack**? Oh. I see. Coming from someone who wrote this isn't it ironic ? >When we understand something, we can generally put it into our own words. I see says the blind man .

Noflaps

edited

Of course I've heard of protesting peacefully, @garlic_bread_rucola . Indeed, I've done it. Perhaps before you were born.

It's interesting that you feel able to condescend to me. I'm glad you're so confident!

But do you think all protests are peaceful? If not, then why quarrel with what I wrote?

And when @notsoneutral (an interesting choice of names) writes:

"Coming from someone who wrote this isn't it ironic ?"

I'll respond, how so? Can you elaborate? It seems to me that accusing someone of frequent fallacious reasoning isn't a compliment. It seems merely to discredit the bearer of a message or idea that one doesn't care for.

But by all means, I'll consider your reasoning to the contrary, if you offer it.

Of course I've heard of protesting peacefully, @garlic_bread_rucola . Indeed, I've done it. Perhaps before you were born. It's interesting that you feel able to condescend to me. I'm glad you're so confident! But do you think all protests are peaceful? If not, then why quarrel with what I wrote? And when @notsoneutral (an interesting choice of names) writes: "Coming from someone who wrote this isn't it ironic ?" I'll respond, how so? Can you elaborate? It seems to me that accusing someone of frequent fallacious reasoning isn't a compliment. It seems merely to discredit the bearer of a message or idea that one doesn't care for. But by all means, I'll consider your reasoning to the contrary, if you offer it.

notsoneutral edited

@Noflaps said ^

And when @notsoneutral (an interesting choice of names)

Gaslighting me again . Is it possible notsoneutral was referencing to I am playing an attacking style of play - unsound most of the time - and playing almost only bullets on chess servers ? For me a more neutral playing style would be more sound positionnaly .

If I follow you, you can claim I can't put it into my own words thereby not too subtly implying I can't understand . At the same time you can complain @clousems is making personal attacks against you ?!

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/PiMdZAih) >And when @notsoneutral (an interesting choice of names) Gaslighting me again . Is it possible notsoneutral was referencing to I am playing an attacking style of play - unsound most of the time - and playing almost only bullets on chess servers ? For me a more neutral playing style would be more sound positionnaly . If I follow you, you can claim I can't put it into my own words thereby not too subtly implying I can't understand . At the same time you can complain @clousems is making personal attacks against you ?!

clousems

I'll respond, how so? Can you elaborate? It seems to me that accusing someone of frequent fallacious reasoning isn't a compliment. It seems merely to discredit the bearer of a message or idea that one doesn't care for.

Point of order— that is itself an incorrect conclusion based on fallacious logic.

Your struggles to engage in structured discussions are distinct from my opinions on the actions you attempt to defend. I have, many, many, many, many times in the past, attempted to overlook the barrage of lines like “was he REALLY the best Biden ever?” in threads about Trump. Honestly, I am a little gobsmacked at the implication that I’m avoiding discussion in favor of character assassination, given my sheer volume of posts responding to you on political topics.

My concern with your fallacious reasoning is that all of your responses in threads about Trump—which used to have some grounding— have gradually adopted the form of “giant clump of recycled straw men, non sequitur, supposed double standard with different circumstances, disputing sources without evidence, blaming shadowy democrat/media conspiracies (technically not a fallacy, but you aren’t making strong cases) and pleading the victim, constructed by South Park’s manatee tank”. How are we supposed to respond when you make the same flawed arguments over and over again, regardless of the circumstances? I

If you want me to respond to your points in a rational, constructive way, you should develop your ideas better. If you’re just gonna repeat talking points spoon-fed by White House press secretaries (who traditionally engage in that same style of not debate), you should not be surprised when others see the holes that you don’t look for.

> I'll respond, how so? Can you elaborate? It seems to me that accusing someone of frequent fallacious reasoning isn't a compliment. It seems merely to discredit the bearer of a message or idea that one doesn't care for. Point of order— that is itself an incorrect conclusion based on fallacious logic. Your struggles to engage in structured discussions are distinct from my opinions on the actions you attempt to defend. I have, many, many, many, many times in the past, attempted to overlook the barrage of lines like “was he REALLY the best Biden ever?” in threads about Trump. Honestly, I am a little gobsmacked at the implication that I’m avoiding discussion in favor of character assassination, given my sheer volume of posts responding to you on political topics. My concern with your fallacious reasoning is that all of your responses in threads about Trump—which used to have some grounding— have gradually adopted the form of “giant clump of recycled straw men, non sequitur, supposed double standard with different circumstances, disputing sources without evidence, blaming shadowy democrat/media conspiracies (technically not a fallacy, but you aren’t making strong cases) and pleading the victim, constructed by South Park’s manatee tank”. How are we supposed to respond when you make the same flawed arguments over and over again, regardless of the circumstances? I If you want me to respond to your points in a rational, constructive way, you should develop your ideas better. If you’re just gonna repeat talking points spoon-fed by White House press secretaries (who traditionally engage in that same style of not debate), you should not be surprised when others see the holes that you don’t look for.

Noflaps

edited

@clousems writes: "If you want me to respond to your points in a rational, constructive way, you should develop your ideas better."

Ah. so if you are not rational and constructive, it's my fault?

I should have known!

By the way, do you think it WAS "the best Biden ever" ?

And if it wasn't, do we learn anything about the objectivity and accuracy of those who repeatedly claimed it was? Or is that just not something we are allowed to ponder, without being accused, vaguely, of engaging in yet another fallacy?

I'd really rather not talk about myself, by the way. But somehow, I often get turned into the subject of the thread, when I risk disagreeing with certain orthodoxies. Don't believe me. Just scroll up and see when the topic turned primarily to criticizing my reasoning.

Oddly, there's some reassurance in witnessing predictability.

@clousems writes: "If you want me to respond to your points in a rational, constructive way, you should develop your ideas better." Ah. so if you are not rational and constructive, it's my fault? I should have known! By the way, do you think it WAS "the best Biden ever" ? And if it wasn't, do we learn anything about the objectivity and accuracy of those who repeatedly claimed it was? Or is that just not something we are allowed to ponder, without being accused, vaguely, of engaging in yet another fallacy? I'd really rather not talk about myself, by the way. But somehow, I often get turned into the subject of the thread, when I risk disagreeing with certain orthodoxies. Don't believe me. Just scroll up and see when the topic turned primarily to criticizing my reasoning. Oddly, there's some reassurance in witnessing predictability.

clousems

edited

@Noflaps said ^

@clousems writes: "If you want me to respond to your points in a rational, constructive way, you should develop your ideas better."

Ah. if you are not rational and constructive, it's my fault?

I should have known!

(Nice hatchet-job on quoting that paragraph, btw)

Indeed, in this case.
As previously stated, if you refuse to engage in rational discussion, I’m in no way obligated to be rational and constructive.

Edit: typo led to unintended double negative. Not edited for content following the prior post’s edit.

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/EopomVWR) > @clousems writes: "If you want me to respond to your points in a rational, constructive way, you should develop your ideas better." > > Ah. if you are not rational and constructive, it's my fault? > > I should have known! (Nice hatchet-job on quoting that paragraph, btw) Indeed, in this case. As previously stated, if you refuse to engage in rational discussion, I’m in no way obligated to be rational and constructive. Edit: typo led to unintended double negative. Not edited for content following the prior post’s edit.

Noflaps

edited

I agree that you are not "obligated" to be rational and constructive, noble @clousems.

I've never thought of rationality and constructive discussion as an "obligation." I think of it as an aspiration -- a goal. It's why I try to stick to issues and not go on at length telling those who disagree with me what's wrong with them.

Debate is not personal for me. Perhaps it's because I'm too old to feel threatened when I find that I might be mistaken.

By the way, I don't see how quoting your own words is a "hatchet job." They say what they say, and I did not write them.

Please take the last word. There's really nothing to be gained here and the discussion, such as it is, is at a point where I'm content to let readers come to their own conclusions. Some will disagree with me! But one cannot convince or please everybody, and that's life.

I agree that you are not "obligated" to be rational and constructive, noble @clousems. I've never thought of rationality and constructive discussion as an "obligation." I think of it as an aspiration -- a goal. It's why I try to stick to issues and not go on at length telling those who disagree with me what's wrong with them. Debate is not personal for me. Perhaps it's because I'm too old to feel threatened when I find that I might be mistaken. By the way, I don't see how quoting your own words is a "hatchet job." They say what they say, and I did not write them. Please take the last word. There's really nothing to be gained here and the discussion, such as it is, is at a point where I'm content to let readers come to their own conclusions. Some will disagree with me! But one cannot convince or please everybody, and that's life.

clousems

By the way, I don't see how quoting your own words is a "hatchet job." They say what they say, and I did not write them

I’d argue that cutting up a paragraph in order to omit the second sentence—which provided the alternative you asked about— is not very honest.

Essentially, I wrote “if x, then a. If y, then b”
Omitting the second half fundamentally changes the meaning.

> By the way, I don't see how quoting your own words is a "hatchet job." They say what they say, and I did not write them I’d argue that cutting up a paragraph in order to omit the second sentence—which provided the alternative you asked about— is not very honest. Essentially, I wrote “if x, then a. If y, then b” Omitting the second half fundamentally changes the meaning.