Quote:
Originally Posted by
FineTunes 
First, let's go back to the original question:
You can't seriously be dense enough to notice that there is no question in there.
There is however a strident declaration, aka a statement on my part. We would call this "THE ANSWER."
They already are talking about eugenics. The American people are now too stupid and thus are incapable of self-government.
Mumbo calls it a lie.
It is the truth. The examples have been noted and are easy to find in media accounts. Your screaming denials don't change that.
I have stated my view of the fact. My version of the events. My belief in what is true aka MY ANSWER and I have done so multiple times.
MJ states that I have provided no evidence for my answer (and that it is a lie, etc.)
Quote:
You were asked the question, you provided the definition and all you had to do was to answer it.
Actually the quotes from you show the following. Someone made a snide aside about Republicans and talk of Eugenics. (Aka so says the guy who....)
I ran with it and said they in fact were already using language that denotes eugenic beliefs and practices. That is my conclusion. That is my answer. There was no question but I provided my statement about it anyway.
Quote:
Simple provide links that reflects the fact that Democrats were advocating eugenics.
You really have some comprehension problems here. On asks for proof for an assertion, a hypothesis or a claim. You have complained that I won't make a claim aka provide an answer. I have done exactly that. I've strongly asserted what I think on this matter.
Quote:
You kept changing the parameters to a very simple question. The question did not ask if the Democrats were practicing eugenics, whether they were murdering or committing violence---just whether there is evidence that they advocated it.
I didn't change the question. I clearly stated that eugenics did not involving purely committing murder or violence. I purposefully stated this fact and linked to a definition of that point. I also stated that there was evidence of their statements. These are both statements or "answers" to unasked questions.
Quote:
The links that I provided, and was criticized for omitting comments (I incorrectly made the assumption that you could understand the point of the articles) reflected viewpoints and beliefs of some right winger Republicans. I do not believe that this is the basis for most right wingers, but a few influential ones none the less.
You weren't criticized for omitting comments. You were criticized for not making any statements that your linking to the articles supported. You do this often and the point is understood. You don't have to defend what you won't state. Likewise people can't criticized you for a position that you won't take. You prefer to let people project their views aka assume or infer what you might be trying to say. This tactic is easily understood and much like how a politician who doesn't answer a question should have it put to them again, you have been asked to state your position aka provide an answer.
If someone asks you if you support a carbon tax, they don't want ten links with full quotations to articles that show alternative energy programs and their benefits. They want to know your answer. When asked to support your answer or PROVE it, then you can support it with the links and quotes.
Quote:
If I was criticized for not making comments to the links and quotes I provided how can you make the accusation that:
You declared those beliefs racist and from those beliefs, drew the conclusion that a person would act like a eugenicist if given the chance to make policy.
I can do that because you expressly asked for me to infer your beliefs since you don't care to state them.
Quote:
Clearly another one of your tactics in not answering a question and accusing your opponent of stating or declaring something that was never said, and all the time avoiding the question.
Clearly you have some serious problem understand logic and argumentation. I've stated multiple conclusions even when not asked a question. Your own quotations show this quite clearly. I've stated that Democratic leaders use language that denotes a belief in eugenics. I've stated the proof is easily found. I've stated and linked to a definition of eugenics that reflects my view of eugenics.
What I have "avoid(ed)" per your claims is proof or links to support those claims aka those answers.
Quote:
It was not my question to answer, however I chose to give examples of Republicans who backed or supported eugenics----not implying mass extermination or murdering.
You linked to certain practices but wouldn't do what you just now did. You would not say if those links were proof of an assertion that some Republicans back or support eugenics via those linked practices. You've done that now so thanks. I asked you several times what answer your "proof" was supporting since you wouldn't state it. I asked you about what claim you were supporting with the links. I asked if racism is proof of eugenics. You wouldn't make any statement aka provide any answer.
Quote:
Now Sego has asked a simple question, and made it simple---either an A or B. Your choice, you can ignore or dismiss it or chose to provide an answer.
I saw this the second time it was posted. I'd ask Sego to answer his poised question first and state the purposes of reviewing the hypothetical question. I'd also ask why it is not open ended for a hypothetical question. It is possible not to desire A or B there.
Quote:
Some comments in this thread regarding your tactics:
I could care less about those. Stupid people bleating on about their ignorance does nothing to me. Your attempt to use shame in a discussion of logic is odd.
MJ has been banned from these forums multiple times because his thinking is not at all lucid and he misreads pretty much everything that passes before his eyes. In this thread for example I asked him expressly to explain how someone who owns something and denies you use of it with a claim is somehow "proven" right by simply owning it. He just disappeared for long enough for your spamming to push it down a couple pages. I occasionally have fun reflecting his own logic back at him and watching him blow a gasket or two, but other than that he's pretty useless for discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jimmac
Good post and good points. I can see that not much has changed here.
I just love this quote from trumpy :
OOOOOOOO! You're so old!
If generational accounting shows my generation is causing harm, I'll gladly slap some heads together. In the meantime most people my age are on 401k's, not pensions, they are receiving and trying to get ahead after the Boomer bubbles, not crafting them. Finally you're right, I'm getting older as all people do. You've likely noticed me posting a bit less on here and I've done a couple century bike rides, a half marathon and several smaller events in my desire to put a downpayment on 40 related to my own health. I'm not expecting my kids to buy me new knees and or pills because obesity is the new 60. I'll gladly be held to my own credo thanks.
FT, If I can find three people who disagree with what you are doing, then what does that prove right or wrong? These are questions, along with many others you don't answer.
He clearly understood what he was doing. He knew it was a breach of journalistic ethics and his own statement notes his prior lack of this behavior I guess as some lame attempt to rationalize this breach of ethics. It's no different than a cheating husband declaring he had been faithful for the first 10 years of his marriage or a murderer or thief declaring they hadn't engaged in those crimes for any number of years.
It wasn't the fine print in his contract either, but the fine print in every contract. It is a standard journalistic practice.
The donations, first reported by Politico, violate MSNBC's rule barring employees from giving to political campaigns. Most news organizations have similar policies as it's considered a breach of journalistic ethics to support candidates that a reporter or news person might cover.
We know what the answer would be if this were perceived or real Republican corruption. More regulation and oversight. Clearly that is what MSNBC and KO need!
