On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:40:54AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:48:53 +1100
> Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 02:22:31PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 07:10:54 -0400
> > > grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Govts are different, people are deluding themselves if they think
> > > > any of today's Govts will let them "live their own ways" without
> > > > ultimately killing them
> >
> > > 'grarpamp' is
> > > - pretending to preach about the evils of government
> > > - while being a robotical supporter of the US government 'led' by
> > > trump
> >
> > That's a dichotomy.
>
> no, that's called being a fucking fraud, as explained above. And you
> are another fucking fraud, just like 'grarpamp'.
And so I guess you would say that you 'totally ignoring grarpamps stated
position re Red v. Blue', whilst highlighting only your cheap false dichotomy
framing, is "reasonable discourse".
We do get your position: that there is nothing good whatsoever about
government, politicians, and statute laws, and no possible support for any
politician can ever have any possible good outcome.
You see, your position is known well.
Your position is so clear in fact it's what we could call a "black and white
argument" - that is, there is no doubt at all, what your position is, what your
argument is, and that everyone should accept your framing of "the argument"
only, and should not accept any other framing of "this argument", nor introduce
any nuance at all, and if they do, they must ipso facto, be an "effing fraud".
We get it.
Your argument is easy to understand since it is so simple, and your framing
allows absolutely -no- room for disagreement, and certainly no room for nuance.
A non-nuanced position or "argument" is often, though not always, a sign of a
false dichotomy - in this case, it is in fact a false dichotomy.
There IS some truth in your position, but it's blunt, and also happens to lack
pragmatism (part of the nuance you want to ignore or say does not exist).
> > Suggesting grarpamp is incapable of holding two "apparently" contradictory
> > statements
>
> of course he's capable of doing that. It's called being a fucking fraud.
>
> Holding contradictory positions on purpose == being a fraud.
Now you've slightly shifted the ground which for some people would be an unfair
thing to do, but as I have said you are welcome to practice on me ;)
What I said was 'holding two "apparently" contradictory statements' - notice
how I went out of my way to highlight that extra word, which you deleted in
your attempt to "take down" or remove or not answer the nuance.
When you insist on not only your own positions to be "black white", but also
remove the nuance from the actual words others use, you might find that you
miss something someone is trying to say or express.
Doing this "nuance removal" tends to reduce discussion to only that which is
comfortable for you, which is sometimes useful, but sometimes counter
productive.
> > at different times, but which can actually be simultaneously true, is that
> > which may be referred to as a -false- dichotomy.
>
> is that a new word you just learnt 'false dichotomy'? I got another
> word for you, straight out from "1984" - doublethink - look it up.
Not quite, doublethink (dict -d wn doublethink) is "believing two contradictory
ideas at the same time".
You are trying to frame this argument as doublethink, which would be an
impossible dichotomy (thus it would be fraudulent), but in this case that is
only possible when you remove the nuance, thereby removing that part of the
argument you want to ignore or pretend does not exist, or simply you don't
agree with. But if lack of agreement were your position, then your removal of
the nuance does you and others a disservice - that "alternative framing
insistence" is (intellectually speaking) a cheap shot or discussion cop out.
> > > . Every word this piece of non-human-shit writes is mockery.
> >
> > That is an ad-hominem attack, and simply false.
>
> no, it is a statement of fact and true.
And now you've again tried to turn this into a black white absolitist dichotomy
("every word" you said) - I'm calling this as I see it, and I've seen you do
much better than that, so why reduce to such cheap shots?
> Anybody can see what people like 'grarpamp' and you do, and conclude that you
> are fucking frauds. Add james donald to the list of course. And any other
> trumpofascist.
Yes, according to this argument ~50% of North Americans are trumpofascist and
the other ~50% are bidenofascist (of the communist variety of fascism) and
therefore the entire North America should really just be nuked immediately,
putting everyone out of their misery already.
Life's just so simple without nuance...
