Your parents didn’t just stuff you in the back window?

Okay, this one made me lol 3x.

No, I’m not entertaining your tried and true slippery slope of straw man accusations when you lose an argument. Be better, because this schtick is getting old and abusive. I’ve done nothing but politely explain my quite reasonable position and only answered your questions as best I can. Continuing on at this point would be sealioning as you’ve obviously tilted into direct attacks on me and to continue this to your embarrassment would only serve to further your agenda of getting a report enforced.

Have a good day Squid. Feel free to read up on that Principle of Charity link I previously supplied for a better understanding of rational argumentation.

sealioning

Seriously, you’re a mod. Do better.

Because I prefer rational arguments as they are the best ones for elucidating Truth, not appeals to emotional ones. I’d rather know I was right for good reasons than just join the mob right or not. In this case anyone could have accused Kamala of ‘being black’ and I could refute it without needing to bring racism claims into it.

Interesting that you use the word ‘charitable’ as the Principle of Charity is literally what I’m talking about.

Edit: bring

(although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS)

I clearly agree with you. The point is that his argument “Kamala is abusing her mixed heritage to pander to those audiences” is the best way to interpret the argument to come to rational conclusions.

In my counter-argument I simply state the premises: The candidates job is to win (implied), both candidates are pandering to their heritage, and accusations of pandering are an unpersuasive form criticism as it is expected from rational voters. Therefore, I do not find his complaint that her pandering is unfair, abusive or even remotely persuasive to vote for him instead.

If you want to pile on a rhetorical argument that he is racist and shouldn’t be voted for you’d be preaching to the choir, but as you can see accusing your arguer of being racist is both irrelevant and counter-productive to coming to the same conclusion in the end.

You’ve edited the first comment I replied to so I cannot quote you.

Also, I’m sorry, the “best possible light” interpretation of “she became black” is that it isn’t racist. It’s racist. Not considering it racist is pretty fucking disgusting.

This is an ad hominem though, as you’re attacking the arguer’s morals instead of employing a proper argument.

As for the example “she became black”, in the context it was uttered Trump is arguing in his frenetic junk speech, that Kamala was using her mixed race to her advantage and gave examples where she appealed to her Indian or Black heritage distinctly due to the context in an attempt to manipulate that core audience. He makes no value judgments on those races or uses it to belittle them (as far as I can recall), which detracts from the racism accusation (although, obviously he is but I can’t be bothered to dredge up all that BS). He is simply saying: “she’s blatantly pandering”. An argument that I begrudgingly agree with (I hate that I do trust me).

That said, while his argument is sound, I am unconvinced because I don’t blame her for pandering to people that share her heritage. If I could I would be too in her shoes, and frankly the obvious counter of “Trump also panders to those that share his heritage (white incels)” is unnecessary but implied in her rolling of eyes / mocking facial expressions.

Edit: Indian and Black -> Indian or Black

Technically yes, you should evaluate those statements in the best light possible with the intention of rebutting with a valid counter-argument that results in a rational conclusion. Absurd declarations are typically the easiest to do so.

In your examples even the moderators evaluated it in their best light. They didn’t jump to declaring donald “the dumbest person alive” and/or “pro-immigrant executions” (although I would have found it hilariously entertaining). They simply said “here is our evidence disproving that claim”, and that is more than enough.

Back to the point of this discussion, you’re jumping to Ad Hominems instead of evaluating their good argument: That the ‘still(?!) undecideds’ will probably not agree with the interpretation that the journalist won because they’re idiots.

I mean, we’re talking about people that still, to this day despite all the evidence, are unsure about who they should vote for. If you’re trying to convince me that the undecideds are mental giants looking for the perfect rational argument to sway them one way or the other then you’re fighting an uphill battle.

The rest of the paragraph makes it clear the writer is speaking from how donald’s advisor (and sycophants) see it. ie:

the best result he could expect.

Not ‘only valid’, not ‘we’. It is not absolute proof, but, if you consider yourself a rational arguer then it is your duty to interpret statements in the best light possible.

Their writing understands how this can look. Doesn’t make them a sycophant.

edit: their

You’re making the mistake of thinking facts and good journalism are at all what Trump sycophants care about. To you and I it looks like the journalist did a good job and won the exchange, but all ‘they’ see is a white man yelling at an uppity immigrant about mocking violent crime in the US.

That’s 27000 streams/hour. How? Why did this take years to discover? How did this not get automatically detected within minutes?

WTF am I doing with my life if it is this easy to scam 2.4million in a year? 1 year and I could yoink it all and move to some BF island in the middle of nowhere with no extradition and live the rest of my life playing Blackjack and Hookers.

Oh, cool. Like a Canadian Loonie, but no longer minted.

What’s a “Sac dollar”?

Removed by mod

Sucks getting a taste of your own medicine eh? Let me know when that place gets so bad you decide it’s worth F’ing off out of it for good.

Seek a second opinion. That doctor is not listening to you. Something other than aging is going on and it should be properly investigated.

edit: is severe arthritis in your family (or any other bone/joint disease)? Are you exposed to large or long term doses of chemical(s) or radiation in your life through work or living environment (industrial zone nearby/upwind, or very old home). These are things I’d be considering.

Well I wouldn’t accept “I dunno” as an answer any more. “you are old enough now that it’s time for you to know because if you don’t people will take advantage of you”.

Every time they say ‘I dunno’ demand a single page report on the answer complete with at least 2 sources. No TV/Phone/Whatever until it is done. They’ll stop uttering that real quick. The key is co-participation though. Telling them something is important is meaningless when compared to showing them it is important by sitting down and helping them figureidout.

How you interact with them is the key to 90% of what your child learns from you. You’re already participating in their viewing. Use this as a stepping stone for dialogue regarding plausibility, and demonstrating critical thinking.

“Do you agree with that influencer? Why or why not?”

“What are the influencers motivations?” Dazzle them with possibilities they had not considered too.

“If I told you I’ve been to space would you believe me? But I’m your parent! Why is my claim beyond belief?”

“Can you verify what that person is telling you through reliable means? This is how I would do that”.

… and so on. Just do more of what you’re doing and up the investigation portion IMO. Don’t be afraid to learn something yourself while they witness it. Just be careful to avoid arguments as they’re getting to that age…