Quote (fender @ Feb 13 2018 02:04am)
holy shit, that's an instant fallacy bingo: false equivalence, slippery slope, ad hominem... you've got them all, don't you?
what you apparently don't have is ANY shame when it comes to making excuses for the corrupt system that infringes upon all the freedoms that the people you amusingly claim to be a part of, regard so highly.
seriously, when "working doors" are equated to a system that allows corporations to buy politicians, which in turn introduce favourable legislation for them (as seen on a daily basis in american politics, from local to national level), you know you're one dishonest hack. if you really can't distinguish between a system that allows corporations to efficiently work with lawmakers on practical solutions on the one hand, and outright buying politicians to introduce basically whatever they want on the other hand, then you should know you have no business even pretending to make a valid argument.
and when you have to act like someone calmly providing FACTS about "campaign donations", is somehow "turning ALL meetings and hearings into shitshows" and therefore unacceptable, you really should not expect anyone to take you seriously. the whole "i'm just saying THIS is not the way" narrative is as lazy as it is transparent.
it reminds me of the nfl protest opponents: pretending to acknowledge the right to oppose something in theory, just never in the manner someone chooses to do it, never in a way that actually has a CHANCE of changing something, or at the very least draw attention to it and make the public question the system...
https://i.redd.it/mo3djyutg30y.jpgI suppose i didnt expect you to be smart enough to make connections and understand what i was talking about and respond intelligently to my points rather than continuing your verbal diarrhea of unjustifiable insults and spin.
'wow hes equating doors with corruption and buying politicians!! they are like totally different! he must be a hack!'
No, its an analogy with certain similarities and i'm testing the principles of he situation.
I was accused of being a shill for pointing out that rules against personal attacks have some legitimate uses and aren't just some evil plot to protect corporations and big government, and the implication was that i should oppose something because it was allegedly in the best interests of corporations and politicians.
This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 13 2018 07:27am