Quid Pro Impeachment Thread

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Clearly I couldn't be in the fifth grade since they don't have a website and one cannot sign up to become a member of the fifth grade there.
Click to expand...
No, you couldn't be in the fifth grade because the material is too advanced for you.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
What you post is alt-right dog-whistling to other alt-rightists who will never question anything they are told to believe.
Click to expand...
Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'alt-right'. It is not a person. It has no beliefs. It is a meaningless buzzword.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You sure are an idiot, IBDaMann, for claiming something can't exist unless they have a website that allows someone to join.
Click to expand...
Your problem. It is YOU claiming something doesn't exist unless there is a website for it! YOU are the one constantly trying to prove something using a Holy Link.
You cannot project YOUR problem upon IBDaMann nor anybody else, Sock.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It seems you failed when you took logic classes.
Because some people lied doesn't prove something does or doesn't exist. Because some people lied saying something exists when it doesn't, doesn't mean everything that someone says exists doesn't exist. The only thing your logic is proving is that IBDaMann is ignorant of logic.
Click to expand...
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Redefinition fallacy (logic<->void).
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Let's see if we can figure this out.
The term "alt-right" is attributed to Richard Spenser who claims to be the one that came up with it. Richard Spenser considers himself "alt-right." He says others that have similar view pionts are alt-right.
Now you come along and claim that the alt-right doesn't exist. If we use your idiotic logic that if someone claims something exists then it doesn't, can't we also use the reverse and if you claim it doesn't exist then it does exist? Or are only you allowed to use logical fallacies?
Click to expand...
Buzzword fallacy (alt-right, logic). Redefinition fallacy (fallacy<->logic, logic<->void).

You deny logic, Sock.

You cannot project YOUR problems upon IBDaMann nor anybody else, Sock.
 
IBDaMann said:
You have not provided a rational basis for your belief.


You have not provided a rational basis for your belief.


Nope. You have not.
Click to expand...

Rational basis for believing Proud Boys exist as an organization -


Video of Trump and Biden mentioning Proud Boys

Court document where Tarrio says -
Appellant is a resident of Florida and the National Chairman of the Proud Boys
https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/2022/21-cm-616.html




Rational basis for believing that there is an alt-right.



http://web.archive.org/web/20110224...ogs/zeitgeist/interview-with-richard-spencer/
Two years later we would be co-editing his more radical website, Alternative Right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101009051331/http://www.alternativeright.com/
Gosh, you could even join using the website!

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2016/09/25/what-is-the-alt-right
UNTIL August this year, the Alt- (short for alternative) Right did not matter much. Two things happened to change that. First, Donald Trump appointed Steve Bannon, a former executive-chairman of Breitbart, as CEO of his campaign. Breitbart is a website that has published stories praising the Alt-Right. Then Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Reno, Nevada, in which she denounced Mr Trump for bringing the Alt-Right and its admirers into the mainstream of American politics.
 
Walt said:
They are not going to make it easy for you, because then the FBI could also track them down.
Click to expand...
The FBI can't track an organization that doesn't exist.

Walt said:
But a good starting point would be their founder's website: https://censored.tv/
Click to expand...
Walt, thank you for the website, however it does nothing more than solidify the hoax nature of the Proud Boys concept. It would be the same if you were claiming that Bigfoot were real and you were to show me some blurry photos.

Look, leftists OBEY all the DNC's hoaxes and scams while conservatives don't feel compelled to "preach the dogma." Leftists all believe in the Climate Change physics violations simply because the DNC orders it, so I get it. When the DNC invents yet another crazy RACIST alt-right/neo-nazi/right-wing-extremist group and orders all leftists to "echo the narrative", you have to OBEY.

The problem obviously enters the picture when you are called on it. You can't show the existence of something that doesn't exist.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
What I identified was IBDaMann asking me to try to defend a statement that I had never made.
Click to expand...
The moment I learned that you never had any intention of participating in the discussion, I closed it out.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
If that isn't your argument then why did you ask for ...
Click to expand...
I don't have an argument. Those who claim that Qanon is real are the ones making the affirmative argument and I am stating that I don't buy it. I then requested to be shown this Qanon.

At what point did I lose you?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Rational basis for believing Proud Boys exist as an organization
Click to expand...
You need to learn what a rational basis is. Pointing to Chris Wallace's criminal corruption of the debate as a reason for believing in a hoax is preposterous. If you're that stupid then I don't want to deprive you of your bliss.
 
IBDaMann said:
Then we're done. That's the topic and you insist on not participating. I appreciate you sparing me the wasted time.

Let me know when something changes.
Click to expand...
Classic denialism

[FONT=&quot]“denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Denial - Wikipedia”[/FONT]
 
IBDaMann said:
The moment I learned that you never had any intention of participating in the discussion, I closed it out.


I don't have an argument. Those who claim that Qanon is real are the ones making the affirmative argument and I am stating that I don't buy it. I then requested to be shown this Qanon.

At what point did I lose you?
Click to expand...

Let's all pretend IBDaMann didn't spend multiple posts saying that Proud Boys and the alt right don't exist.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5954858#post5954858
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5954917#post5954917
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5954924#post5954924
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5954929#post5954929
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5954954#post5954954
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5955003#post5955003
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5955083#post5955083
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5955220#post5955220
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5955248#post5955248
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Pro-Impeachment-Thread&p=5955287#post5955287


Everyone ignore all those posts by IBDaMann because clearly he never posted them and never said anything about the alt right and Proud Boys and how he doesn't think they exist.
 
IBDaMann said:
You need to learn what a rational basis is. Pointing to Chris Wallace's criminal corruption of the debate as a reason for believing in a hoax is preposterous. If you're that stupid then I don't want to deprive you of your bliss.
Click to expand...

I wonder why Trump didn't correct Wallace and Biden if the Proud Boys don't exist.
I wonder why the Proud Boys talked about how Trump recognized them if they don't exist.
I wonder why members of the Proud Boys presented documents to the court admitting they were members if they don't exist.
I wonder why the lawyers didn't get the charges dismissed against the alleged members of the Proud Boys if the prosecution was lying about it's existence.

At this point you are only proving you have to rely on the invincible ignorance fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

Now everyone can watch IBDaMann resort to the invincible ignorance fallacy yet again when he argues that wikipedia is not a valid source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top