If you think throwing in an insult as a basis to establish some argument is “obviously ok”, you are all mistaken, or badly cultural-centric. But go you, I guess.
Wisdom and Aphorisms from President Trump: Great Leader, Great Teacher, Great Supreme Commander, Great Helmsman of our Nation
… again, if he were anyone other than President of the United States his kids would be hiding his car keys and finding him a nice home.
Re: Trump thinking about running for the 2012 election. This was reported at the time.
Good, you worthless POS. They shouldn’t be putting you on the air anyway. Of course DJT would die before boycotting some news network. He lives for the coverage.
It is no more an insult than using the term “no true Scotsman” would imply something about people in the northern reaches of the U.K.
I can see that there is potential for misunderstanding among those who are not acquainted with this extremely common, decades-old rhetorical device, but Scott’s comment was entirely within the bounds of a slightly rough-n-tumble discussion, which this forum tends to be.
It’s not as common as you think it is. I’m pretty sure that used in certain countries it would be seen as terribly offensive.
I can’t know what will be viewed as offensive in every country.
The question I asked is a variation of the standard textbook example of what is called a loaded question, one which contains a presumption of guilt. If you look back at the exchange, you’ll see I offered it in response to another loaded question, for the purpose of demonstrating that this prior question also contained a presumption of guilt.
I can see how you might be offended if you didn’t know that; but you know it now.
I understand that, but I wasn’t actually bringing in family members; no more so than I would be bringing in Scotsman by referring to the No True Scotsman fallacy. The question I asked is quite literally the textbook version of the fallacy.
You’re really reaching for external reasons to justify why you didn’t recognize that comment for what it was.
I wasn’t asking a loaded question as much as I was making the point that Scott was using Obama’s race as a weapon. The question was clearly also rhetorical.
Stick the word “Senator” in front of Scott’s loaded question and I think it would have worked better. The personal offense it caused could have been anticipated.
The idea that we in Qt3 are such delicate flowers that we can’t handle the use of a venerable, well-documented and yes, slightly snarky bit of debating rhetoric is something that makes me a bit sad. And I say that as someone who has unusually thin skin for a forumgoer.
Speaking for the entire forum, just because I can, we can handle some snark. Cmon people.
Living in Indiana, you don’t find delicate progressive flowers too often. Rocky soil and all that.
Where is my like button?
In addition to Nazi roleplaying and looking to make Venezuela an even bigger mess, it appears these two share another common interest:
When you’re damn proud of your corruption and venality.
Maybe he thinks it’s just “good business”?
This dumbass would lie about the color of shirt he’s wearing.
My liberal superhero/columnist provides some insight as usual 👉
Is it just me or is he wandering off script more and appearing even more senile lately? Either that or hes on something, or both.