Biden: "You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America."

[urherenow]

There was nothing serious about January 6th, but you just stated that conservative blue-collar types rioted. I'm confused. Is a riot not serious?

Not if you're a democrat. How easy it is to sweep an ENTIRE SUMMER of riots ACROSS THE COUNTRY, with children getting shot in the face, businesses looted and burnt to the ground... I'm sure there must be books on that summer already. But no, January 6th was the orange devil, so it must be worse.

 

[tabzer]

Trump's lawyer argues that a president can order SEAL Team Six to assassinate his political rival if Congress is cool with it

It's ridiculous from a moral standpoint, but this is how America has operated for 200 years. Is Trump the reason you want to put a pin in it? Cool with me.

Not if you're a democrat. How easy it is to sweep an ENTIRE SUMMER of riots ACROSS THE COUNTRY, with children getting shot in the face, businesses looted and burnt to the ground... I'm sure there must be books on that summer already. But no, January 6th was the orange devil, so it must be worse.

There was a sub-riot, but multiple groups had different behaviors. To group everyone together because they were in the same place should group in Congress by the same virtue.

 

[supermist]

Not if you're a democrat. How easy it is to sweep an ENTIRE SUMMER of riots ACROSS THE COUNTRY, with children getting shot in the face, businesses looted and burnt to the ground... I'm sure there must be books on that summer already. But no, January 6th was the orange devil, so it must be worse.

I've debunked this multiple times now but you smooth brains are incapable of processing verified data on the subject. It's frustrating because you'll all continue to spout these debunked, low IQ claims.

 

[Chris2055]

I've debunked this multiple times now but you smooth brains are incapable of processing verified data on the subject. It's frustrating because you'll all continue to spout these debunked, low IQ claims.

The thing is, even if it were true, it's irrelevant. I made that comment in the context of this discussion, in response to the assertion that this was a riot rather than an insurrection, using his definition of the events of the day. Because it's impossible to answer that statement without looking like an idiot, they deflect. Whataboutism and red-herrings, like I said before.

 

[Ligeia]

It's hilarious how one particlar side always feels the need to resort to name calling ("low IQ", "idiot"...) to try to get their points across. That is not the way to have an adult debate, it's grade school bullying.

 

[tabzer]

The thing is, even if it were true, it's irrelevant. I made that comment in the context of this discussion, in response to the assertion that this was a riot rather than an insurrection, using his definition of the events of the day. Because it's impossible to answer that statement without looking like an idiot, they deflect. Whataboutism and red-herrings, like I said before.

A red-herring is something that does not exist, a clue to chase yielding no answer.

Whataboutism is a type of deflection, but in the context of how justice is applied, everything under the scope of the justice is relevant. Using "whataboutism" as a deflection from that implies that "the end justify the means".

Saying "whataboutism" can be whataboutism. It's redundant and retreats from broaching the subject.

I have no problem saying that Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection. If justice is consistent, then it's possible that insurrections happen every day. I probably incited one this morning. Nobody tried to overthrow the government. All parties that were involved wanted to be apart of the government, though possibly wanted to be more important than others--but that's already how politics work. We just entered the WWF stage of it. You guys are roleplaying and I find it embarrassing.

 

[Chris2055]

A red-herring is something that does not exist, a clue to chase yielding no answer.

...

Whataboutism is a type of deflection, but in the context of how justice is applied, everything under the scope of the justice is relevant. Using "whataboutism" as a deflection from that implies that "the end justify the means".

We weren't talking about justice. You were arguing January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Then you proceeded to define an insurrection in a round-about way that has all of the essential characteristics of an insurrection but relies on semantics to make it sound less bad.

Saying "whataboutism" can be whataboutism. It's redundant and retreats from broaching the subject.

Nice attempt at gaslighting. It doesn't work with me.

I have no problem saying that Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection.

I know, that's the crux of the problem.

If justice is consistent, then it's possible that insurrections happen every day.

Okay...?

I probably incited one this morning. Nobody tried to overthrow the government. All parties that were involved wanted to be apart of the government, though possibly wanted to be more important than others--but that's already how politics work. We just entered the WWF stage of it. You guys are roleplaying and I find it embarrassing.

Nice attempt at minimizing the situation. That's what MAGA do. Deflect, redefine, push the limits. Tear shit down until it becomes meaningless.

Post automatically merged: Jan 10, 2024

It's hilarious how one particlar side always feels the need to resort to name calling ("low IQ", "idiot"...) to try to get their points across. That is not the way to have an adult debate, it's grade school bullying.

Were you referring to me?

 

[tabzer]

...

Do you have a question? I thought it was clear that the "red-herring" fallacy doesn't apply here.

We weren't talking about justice. You were arguing January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Then you proceeded to define an insurrection in a round-about way that has all of the essential characteristics of an insurrection but relies on semantics to make it sound less bad.

Insurrection is a term specifically regarding justice. I don't understand what you mean with your latter claim.

Nice attempt at gaslighting. It doesn't work with me.

It's true. Saying "whataboutism" in this context is a "technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue." Literally, the definition. The justice isn't consistent; that's the complaint.

I know, that's the crux of the problem.

That's your problem. My point is that I I do not need to point at something else to rationalize that Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection. I only point at the other things to demonstrate where your priorities lie.

Okay...?

Are you trying to make minimalize it?

Nice attempt at minimizing the situation. That's what MAGA do. Deflect, redefine, push the limits. Tear shit down until it becomes meaningless.

Roughly %30 of eligible voters of the USA allegedly voted for Joe Biden. If the rest is MAGA, you have a real problem on your hands.

 

[Chris2055]

Do you have a question? I thought it was clear that the "red-herring" fallacy doesn't apply here.

I don't know how to respond because you're just objectively wrong. Maybe look it up?

Insurrection is a term specifically regarding justice. I don't understand what you mean with your latter claim.

I don't know what you don't understand. I've made it as clear as I possibly can. You explained an insurrection without using the word insurrection, because using the word insurrection is counter to your narrative, hard to defend, and uncomfortable to be associated with, but by all definitions of the word, you described an insurrection.

It's true. Saying "whataboutism" in this context is a "technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue." Literally, the definition. The justice isn't consistent; that's the complaint.

If that's what you're arguing, it's different from your prior argument, which was that the events of January 6th didn't constitute an insurrection.

That's your problem

It's America's problem and democracy's problem.

Are you trying to make minimalize it?

What?

Roughly %30 of eligible voters of the USA allegedly voted for Joe Biden. If the rest is MAGA, you have a real problem on your hands.

Voting for Joe Biden has nothing to do with trying to redefine the terms of an insurrection or with minimizing it.

 

[supermist]

It's hilarious how one particlar side always feels the need to resort to name calling ("low IQ", "idiot"...) to try to get their points across. That is not the way to have an adult debate, it's grade school bullying.

Once again the anti PC crowd gets butthurt when we aren't PC with them.

 

[tabzer]

I don't know how to respond because you're just objectively wrong. Maybe look it up?

You say I am objectively wrong, so I'd like you to show how the red-herring fallacy was applied. If you believe that justice is inconsequential then you can say so, and we can agree that we don't agree.

I don't know what you don't understand. I've made it as clear as I possibly can. You explained an insurrection without using the word insurrection, because using the word insurrection is counter to your narrative, hard to defend, and uncomfortable to be associated with, but by all definitions of the word, you described an insurrection.

Insurrection: riot involving politicians?

Is that what you mean?

If that's what you're arguing, it's different from your prior argument, which was that the events of January 6th didn't constitute an insurrection.

My "prior argument"? About "whataboutism"? You lost me here.

It's America's problem and democracy's problem.

Not democracy's problem, but a problem for people who don't like it. As I suggested before, it's only voters and people who believe in democracy that were apart of the "insurrection".

What?

I don't understand how you missed that point.

Voting for Joe Biden has nothing to do with trying to redefine the terms of an insurrection or with minimizing it.

Biden supporters (maybe not all) are the ones trying to define the situation as an "insurrection". It's a bandwagon that the majority of the world isn't aboard. Sorry if saying it out loud inconveniences you.

 

[Ligeia]

Once again the anti PC crowd gets butthurt when we aren't PC with them.

That just shows the hypocrisy and double standards of the PC crowd... And why they are toxic and can't be taken seriously.

 

[Chris2055]

You say I am objectively wrong, so I'd like you to show how the red-herring fallacy was applied. If you believe that justice is inconsequential then you can say so, and we can agree that we don't agree.

I'll re-iterate, but I did already explain this in full detail in my prior posts. You've been arguing that January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Then you tried to bring up other events (presumably the events that occurred in response to the killing of George Floyd?). That is what-aboutism, which is a form of a red-herring logical fallacy. Now you're trying to move the goalposts again with this argument about justice.

Insurrection: riot against politicians?

No. Again you've tried to redefine it.

My "prior argument"? About "whataboutism"? You lost me here.

Your prior argument that the events of January 6th didn't fit the definition of insurrection.

Not democracy's problem, but a problem for people who don't like it. As I suggested before, it's only voters and people who believe in democracy that were apart of the "insurrection".

Not sure how to respond. They broke into the capitol building, tried to interrupt certification of the 2020 election, attacked the capitol police, invaded the private offices of politicians, and caused millions of dollars of damages. I'm not sure how that fits the definition of democracy.

Biden supporters (maybe not all) are the ones trying to define the situation as an "insurrection". It's a bandwagon that the majority of the world isn't aboard. Sorry if saying it out loud inconveniences you.

Are we back to arguing that January 6th wasn't an insurrection now?

 

[lerpderp]

It's hilarious how one particlar side always feels the need to resort to name calling ("low IQ", "idiot"...) to try to get their points across. That is not the way to have an adult debate, it's grade school bullying.

sounds alot like you want to dish it out but your fee fees can't handle being on the recieving end

 

[tabzer]

I'll re-iterate, but I did already explain this in full detail in my prior posts. You've been arguing that January 6th wasn't an insurrection. Then you tried to bring up other events (presumably the events that occurred in response to the killing of George Floyd?). That is what-aboutism, which is a form of a red-herring logical fallacy. Now you're trying to move the goalposts again with this argument about justice.

No. Again you've tried to redefine it.

Your prior argument that the events of January 6th didn't fit the definition of insurrection.

Not sure how to respond. They broke into the capitol building, tried to interrupt certification of the 2020 election, attacked the capitol police, invaded the private offices of politicians, and caused millions of dollars of damages. I'm not sure how that fits the definition of democracy.

Are we back to arguing that January 6th wasn't an insurrection now?

I mentioned how there is an implicit "protected class" with politicians when a riot that involves them is more important than riots that actually cause people to suffer. This is where I think your priorities are misguided by chasing "insurrection" to benefit politicians, and avoid holding those politicians accountable for the more damaging riots they invoked, or allowed.

Regarding justice, this is not a red-herring. At best, it is a "whataboutism" tactic... if it was intended as a diversion.

Honestly, I think people believe you should understand that Jan 6 was not an insurrection due to its lukewarm theatrics. Those same people would prefer you to be outraged about how citizens are leveraged for political and media narratives. It's almost as if you don't care about people, but you care about the status of people, which is something many people are already over.

If the whole world were to riot, would you still defend the two people who are allowed to vote or the politician/s that represent them?

I don't call it an insurrection because it's a subjective term, and the violence favored one side. Also, unlike in the Civil War, where both sides were in agreement of engaging in war--this was a situation where both sides believed they had authority per the constitution. It wasn't to overthrow, but it was to protect.

"Whataboutism". It's a stupid sounding word because it is stupid. It's a lazy way to dismiss concerns of people without making an effort to emphasize the virtue of your point. Any totalitarian can claim "whataboutism" in response to people complaining about human rights.

 

[Ligeia]

sounds alot like you want to dish it out but your fee fees can't handle being on the recieving end

lol. Being anti PC has nothing to do with being incapable to debating without calling names...

 

[Chris2055]

I mentioned how there is an implicit "protected class" with politicians when a riot that involves them is more important than riots that actually cause people to suffer. This is where I think your priorities are misguided by chasing "insurrection" to benefit politicians, and avoid holding those politicians accountable for the more damaging riots they invoked.

The comparison between two different independent events is a red-herring. We are talking about January 6th. There's no chase necessary, January 6th was an insurrection. They were attempting to stop certification of the election through violence and install Trump as president.

Regarding justice, this is not a red-herring. At best, it is a "whataboutism" tactic... if it was intended as a diversion.

Whataboutism is a form of the red-herring logical fallacy. Did you even read the source I linked? It's the first example on the list!

Honestly, I think people believe you should understand that Jan 6 was not an insurrection due to its lukewarm theatrics. Those same people would prefer you to be outraged about how citizens are leveraged for political and media narratives. It's almost as if you don't care about people, but you care about the status of people, which is something many people are already over.

But January 6th was an insurrection.

If the whole world were to riot, would you still defend the two people who are allowed to vote?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Are you trying to argue that it's okay due to the scale? To answer the question though, I'd defend the vote (ideologically at least) because I believe in democracy.

I don't call it an insurrection because it's a subjective term, and the actual violence was on one side.

It's not subjective. The violence was not on one side (committed by conservatives, yes, but people from many ideologies were on the receiving end of it) but even if it were, that's not a necessary condition for insurrection.

"Whataboutism". It's a stupid sounding word because it is stupid. It's a lazy way to dismiss concerns of people without making an effort to emphasize the virtue of your point. Any totalitarian can claim "whataboutism" in response to people complaining about human rights.

It applies when instead of addressing the merits of the argument at hand you deflect to some other issue. Two wrongs don't make a right so the merits of the other issue is irrelevant unless you're trying to expose hypocrisy. However, even if one is a hypocrite, it doesn't mean they're incorrect about the merits of this particular argument.

 

[supermist]

sounds alot like you want to dish it out but your fee fees can't handle being on the recieving end

Yeah, it's well known that MAGAs are incredible fragile snowflakes.

They're perpetually mad.

Post automatically merged: Jan 10, 2024

lol. Being anti PC has nothing to do with being incapable to debating without calling names...

There's no debate here because what happened on 1/6 isn't debatable.

So we'll continue to call you stupid, because those who argue that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection, or that the election was stolen are far too stupid to have any reasonable discussion with.

Continue to be mad, dumbass.

 

[JaapDaniels]

Yeah, it's well known that MAGAs are incredible fragile snowflakes.

They're perpetually mad.

Post automatically merged: Jan 10, 2024

There's no debate here because what happened on 1/6 isn't debatable.

So we'll continue to call you stupid, because those who argue that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection, or that the election was stolen are far too stupid to have any reasonable discussion with.

Continue to be mad, dumbass.

Wait, what? Is ther also an insident on the first of June?

 

[The Catboy]

Not if you're a democrat. How easy it is to sweep an ENTIRE SUMMER of riots ACROSS THE COUNTRY, with children getting shot in the face, businesses looted and burnt to the ground... I'm sure there must be books on that summer already. But no, January 6th was the orange devil, so it must be worse.

I am not a Democrat, but I feel like people not being happy over police brutality isn't comparable to people attempting to overthrow an election because their guy lost. I am just saying, the Jan 6th will always be a group of sore losers who were the big mad over their sore loser leader losing. I don't care how people view the other riots, but let's not pretend the losers on Jan 6th were rioting over anything other than being losers.