Feds Not Welcome, But Fed Money Is?

Author: ethang5

Posts

Total: 30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Earlier in his presidency, the people of New York and California said Trump was not welcome in their states. Their governors instructed state officers not to cooperate with federal officials.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

Childish hypocrites, the lot of them. And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.
and neither will those who scream at the sky, it's as if it doesn't matter to him, that he is helping everyone anyway and equally, hmmm

he's even said nice things about some of the hate filled, authoritarian governors
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
I think it is better sometimes to look at the long term larger picture.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.

In my estimation, that would make for an excellent president, and a stronger nation.
KingArthur
KingArthur's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 29
0
0
4
KingArthur's avatar
KingArthur
0
0
4
-->
@ethang5
During a time of crisis? Bad time to make a point. I see where you're coming from but rising above the petty political jargon of governors is what makes a good leader, not taking the worst possible time to make a political point.


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
How about that $1200 being sent to everyone eh?

I can safely say that I don't like the idea of the federal government handing out checks willy-nilly. I don't much care who is writing the checks because I form my political positions based on whether I like a certain idea rather than whether I like the person proposing the idea.

I wonder if Ethan can say the same. He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.


Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.
Should he seek their kowtow/obeisance or their cooperation?

In my estimation, that would make for an excellent president, and a stronger nation.
I disagree. It makes for a petty president--not that Trump isn't petty. There are times to flex, and there are times to dust off your shoulders. This isn't the time for the former.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@ethang5
very good point
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@KingArthur
...rising above the petty political jargon of governors is what makes a good leader,
That's just it. What those governors did was not petty political jargon. It struck at the heart of our national identity. Federal and state authority is a emotive issue, we fought a civil war over it. Those governors are traitors.

not taking the worst possible time to make a political point.
It is in fact the best possible time to make that point, and it isn't only a political point, it is much more.

Not everything is political, nor should everything be boiled down to just politics.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do?
Is there a moral law that says I should make the same discrimination as it does? That is life, we are all affected by the majority and by chance.

That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.
It is a disincentive to unpatriotic behavior. It teaches that negative behavior will bring about negative consequences. Your view here is very cynical, akin to calling marriage, prostitution. You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics. It's to clearly demonstrate the connection between their behavior and the consequence.

Should he seek their kowtow/obeisance or their cooperation?
Why should he seek either? He already has their cooperation, as they have come running to him with their palms outstreatched. And he is president, with authority over the federal government, he doesn't need them to kowtow.

I disagree. It makes for a petty president--not that Trump isn't petty.
Yes, I notice that even though Trump is behaving opposite to a way you are calling petty, you still call call him petty.

There are times to flex, and there are times to dust off your shoulders. This isn't the time for the former.
I disagree. For this would not be just flexing or posturing. It is much more important than that. All civilisations so far have declined and died. This is one of the reasons why.

The members get fat and privileged, used to being immune from the consequence of their self destructive behavior. And the civilisation crumbles, from the inside out, from people who mistake selfishness for freedom.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Thanks Doc. I knew you'd be able to see the point even if you have a different view.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I can safely say that I don't like the idea of the federal government handing out checks willy-nilly.
I agree, whether I can "safely" say it is another matter.

I don't much care who is writing the checks because I form my political positions based on whether I like a certain idea rather than whether I like the person proposing the idea.
Long arms make self-back patting easy.

I wonder if Ethan can say the same.
He can, but since that is already obvious, he doesn't have to.

He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.
How have you interpreted this post as me advocating govt. handouts?? I said nothing about my position on the issue, I was noting the disconnect between governors and states rejecting federal officers but accepting federal money.

That seems inconsistent to me. President Trump, the head fedinista, you say is not welcome in your state, and you instruct your state officials not to cooperate with federal officials (breaking the law in doing so) but you run to the feds for money as soon as a crisis hits your state?

I have not said whether I personally like or dislike the handout, I'm only saying it is hypocritical for states, governors, and sanctuary cities to want it.

The majority of people who like Trump, like him because of his policies, not because of the color of his tie. That is reserved for the lemmings in blue.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
How have you interpreted this post as me advocating govt. handouts?

I haven't.

Your opening post does not state your stance on the $1200 handout one way or the other. That is why I asked what your stance on it was.

If you had stated your stance then I would not have asked your stance.

So what do you think about the $1200 handout then? You seem to imply you don't like it based on the quote "He can, but since that is already obvious, he doesn't have to."

You like it or dislike it?
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.
It was a clumsy save for you. I'm used to much more polished from you.

You like it or dislike it?
Is your question on topic?

It is a ridiculous waste of money, and most of it will be stolen before it gets to the people.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
It was a clumsy save for you. I'm used to much more polished from you.

Huh? Are you still trying to convince yourself that post 6 was claiming you took the stance that Trump's handout is a good idea? Try rereading it. Here, let me help:

I am curious whether [ethan] can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to [state a dislike for government handouts] now...

See the problem yet or do you need it simplified a bit more?

I am curious whether ethan can demonstrate any consistency of thought...

Still don't get it?

I am curious...

Let me spell it out for you then. If I believed that you had taken the stance that Trump's handout was a good idea then I would not have "been curious" as to whether you thought Trump's handout was a good idea. If I thought I knew the answer I would not have asked the question. This is how words work.

I will restate it another way in case you still don't get it:

1) In the hypothetical world where I accuse you of liking Trump's handout I would say something like "you like Trump's handout"

2) In the hypothetical world where I do not know how you feel about Trump's handout but wanted to know I would say something like "I am curious how you feel about Trump's handout"

3) Post 6 (the post made in reality) matches with the second hypothetical, not the first. This means that reality does not match with the hypothetical where I was accusing you of liking Trump's handout. In other words I was not accusing you of liking Trump's handout (which you said I was doing in post 12).

I dislike being forced to make such a hyper-reductionist post but it seems to be the only way to get you to comprehend simple concepts at times.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I dislike being forced.....
No one forced you to do anything.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
Is there a moral law that says I should make the same discrimination as it does? That is life, we are all affected by the majority and by chance.
That's not "life"; that's a conscious decision. Withholding the assistance of federal officers to make a point to politicians and their base, possibly at the expense of non-complicit parties, especially during a media orchestrated panic, is petty.

It is a disincentive to unpatriotic behavior.
No, it doesn't. At best, you can argue that it addresses the governors' undermining the "chain of command" but it has nothing to do with patriotism.

It teaches that negative behavior will bring about negative consequences.
No it would teach the lesson, "Don't mess with Trump." In order to teach the lesson of which you speak, the consequences have to result from a direct action. It would be like my stating that I wouldn't help my son with his homework because he didn't listen to me when I told him not to play with fire.

Your view here is very cynical
Skeptical is more apropos.

akin to calling marriage, prostitution.
Legal marriage is prostitution.

You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics.
Your point is political; hence your mention of the optics, i.e. "And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces." Why would any of that matter if the point is to hypothetically teach them that actions have consequences?

It's to clearly demonstrate the connection between their behavior and the consequence.
No it isn't. It's merely to reciprocate reactionary behavior.

Yes, I notice that even though Trump is behaving opposite to a way you are calling petty, you still call call him petty.
He isn't behaving petty in this situation (that would be counterintuitive especially given our discussion.) But has he exhibited behavior that as a composite would inform the characterization, "petty"? Yes.

I disagree. For this would not be just flexing or posturing. It is much more important than that.
The importance you are arguing is letting these "sanctuary" governors "know how you feel," rather than providing solutions. The image of democratic government alleges a system of public servants, not a group of lords functioning within the auspices of their king--allegedly. What would be the long term reverberations if one public servant purposefully withheld resources--as you suggested--from another public servant in a time of "crisis"?

All civilisations so far have declined and died.
That is not the least bit true.





ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Your view here is very cynical, akin to calling marriage, prostitution.

Legal marriage is prostitution.
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.
What case? Your analogy had little relevance, much less an explanation. But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.



Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
<br>

If that thought is based on logic rather than an emotional reaction of being butthurt because your error was pointed out then you would accept a debate on the topic.

It actually is just you being butthurt though, meaning you will decline.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lol. A debate with you?

But this is just like the taunts from 3rd grade, "If you don't then you're chicken"

You who are motivated by the gallery will never understand why this particular taunt doesn't move us.

I can almost feel your butthurt.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.

What case?
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.

Your analogy had little relevance, much less an explanation.
You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.

But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos. 
Again, thank you. The help was not needed, but welcome.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.
And the subject of this discussion is how "cynical" my thinking is? I thought it was about what the president ought to have done during this "panic," particularly his response to sanctuary governors, and the hypothetical situation where you were president. Your allegation of "cynicism" is nothing more than a tone argument, which is an inept derailment tactic.

You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.
Exactly: I had to supply the explanation. But you have yet to demonstrate its relevance. I entertained the point in order to express my perspective of legal marriage--in retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.

What case?
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.

And the subject of this discussion is how "cynical" my thinking is?
Since I saw that your cynicism has made you incapable of rationally contributing to this discussion, yes.

I thought it was about what the president ought to have done during this "panic," particularly his response to sanctuary governors, and the hypothetical situation where you were president.
Actually, it was about how hypocritical they were to want federal help but reject federal law. You decided that Trumps response was politics and responded that way.

Your allegation of "cynicism" is nothing more than a tone argument, which is an inept derailment tactic.
Derailment from what? You are intelligent Athias, when a person says, for example, that marriage is prostitution, what more is there to say? You seem to believe simply saying something is a "tone" argument, or what ever designation you slap onto a discussion, makes it so. You are very intelligent, but you may be autistic.

You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.

Exactly: I had to supply the explanation.
Which is why I didn't need to.

But you have yet to demonstrate its relevance.
Well, considering you said The analogy had very little explanation or relevance, this is progress.

It is the same cynicism that informs your opinion of what motivates my suggestion of what Trump should do, and what motivates people to marry. You are not emotionally able to rationally discuss this.

I entertained the point in order to express my perspective of legal marriage--in retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.
How was it a mistake? Do you think my analogy of people who see marriage as being prostitution was a guess?

Not everything is win or lose. I respect your opinion and support your right to both have it and express it.

But if you look at a young couple in love, willing to sacrifice for each other, build a family together, and share the joys of life, and your take is that marriage is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract, there is not much I can say to you.

Go in peace young man. You have done no wrong.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.
You allege that I'm cynical; once again, "skeptical" is more apropos.

Since I saw that your cynicism has made you incapable of rationally contributing to this discussion, yes.
You have yet to demonstrate this cynicism, not that it has any relevance outside of your capacity to let me know how you feel. And this isn't about rational contributions, this is about derailment. You're focusing on what you allege my state of mind is, or what my impressions are, rather than the arguments I provided. As far as this tangent, you've only argued ad hominem.

You decided that Trumps response was politics and responded that way.
Quote me. I remember my response being this:

And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.

You're the one who argued exploiting a "panic" in order to make a point about "patriotism," which is just a circumventing reference to obedience.

Derailment from what?
Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.

You are intelligent Athias
But...

when a person says, for example, that marriage is prostitution, what more is there to say?
Where did I state that marriage was prostitution? I stated "legal marriage" is prostitution for the reasons I've already mentioned. "Legal" is an important qualifier.

You seem to believe
Seem is neither an argument, nor an observation. It's your impression; and impressions are irrelevant.

simply saying something is a "tone" argument, or what ever designation you slap onto a discussion, makes it so.
No. Gauging an argument for its logical inconsistencies validates my rendering your argument one of "tone." It was not made on whim. My arguments are always logically consistent. Being aware of all of the logical inconsistencies comes with the territory. And yes, you did make a tone argument.

You are very intelligent
But...

but you may be autistic.
How are the two mutually exclusive? And I "may" be autistic? No, I'm not autistic. That's just another ad hominem.

Which is why I didn't need to.
My explanation was provided after the fact.

It is the same cynicism that informs your opinion of what motivates my suggestion of what Trump should do,
Once again, you are alleging this cynicism and using it to argue ad hominem.

and what motivates people to marry.
Non sequitur. I never argued what motivated people to marry. I argued the motivations under legal marriage.

You are not emotionally able to rationally discuss this.
My emotional capacity is irrelevant in logical discussion.

How was it a mistake? Do you think my analogy of people who see marriage as being prostitution was a guess?
I should have never entertained it because it's an irrelevant tangent. But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.

Not everything is win or lose.
Don't remember stating that it was.

But if you look at a young couple in love,
Couples shouldn't be "in love." "In love" is like an adrenaline rush--it requires novelty and escalation. One ought to "love" like one loves a family member, the characterization of which would include loyalty, intimacy, and consideration.

willing to sacrifice for each other, build a family together, and share the joys of life, and your take is that marriage is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract, there is not much I can say to you.

What is that you saw when I stated this?:

But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.






ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
You allege that I'm cynical; once again, "skeptical" is more apropos. 
You think "skeptical" is more, apropos, your thoughts on marriage show that  cynicism is more correct.

You have yet to demonstrate this cynicism,....
You demonstrated it yourself. And yes, I know you don't think you did.

...not that it has any relevance outside of your capacity to let me know how you feel. 
It has more relevance than that, and I decide it's relevance, not you. Either way, letting you know how I feel should be an aid to mutual understanding.

And this isn't about rational contributions, this is about derailment.
"This" is always what you say it is, right? Royal pronouncements don't work with me A. You admitted entertaining this tangent. If it is derailment, it's you doing the derailment.

I brought up the topic. I made the thread, why would I derail what I brought up?

You're the one who argued exploiting a "panic"... 
No sir. You're the one who claimed it was an argument to exploit a panic. You may not be able to see the difference, but it is there never-the-less.

...in order to make a point about "patriotism," which is just a circumventing reference to obedience.
This again is your cynicism coloring your perspective. You even think you know my intent. As long as your cynicism colors your perspective, you will simply interpret everything through its prism, like you do with marriage.

Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.
Federal officers, to my knowledge, have always been, and will always be, outside of my emotional capacity. Whatever that means.

"Legal" is an important qualifier.
OK. You think "legal" marriage is prostitution.

Seem is neither an argument, nor an observation. It's your impression; and impressions are irrelevant.
I do not think impressions are irrelevant. And I certainly do not think they are irrelevant because you say so. The talking point about "seem" is an old clunker meant to sound better than the usefulness it affords.

My arguments are always logically consistent.
While that itself is questionable, even if true, would not mean your argument are always true. But it shows high esteem to judge the logical consistency of your arguments with an absolute.

How are the two mutually exclusive?
They aren't necessarily.

And I "may" be autistic? No, I'm not autistic. That's just another ad hominem.
How is that an ad hominem? It's like observing that a person is tall. But being autistic can interfere with smooth communication.

My explanation was provided after the fact. 
What fact? It was provided after I predicted you would provide it.

...you are alleging this cynicism...
Yes I am, as demonstrated in your comments about marriage, sorry, "legal" marriage. So what? You are alleging exploiting a panic. That is how debates work. Allegations are not wrong because you disagree with them.

I never argued what motivated people to marry. I argued the motivations under legal marriage
OK. And it is your cynicism that causes you to view legal marriage that way, the same cynicism causing you to think my motivation for my suggestion to Trump was petty politics.

My emotional capacity is irrelevant in logical discussion.
If you actually believe this, then you are autistic.

I should have never entertained it because it's an irrelevant tangent. But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.
Entertain whatever you will, but please stop claiming I'm the one trying to derail my own topic when its you entertaining a tangent.

Not everything is win or lose.

Don't remember stating that it was.
I do remember you behaving as though it was.

Couples shouldn't be "in love."
You should be aware this is simply your opinion.

One ought to "love" like one loves a family member,...
Every legally marrying couple should "love" the way you think they should, otherwise it's prostitution. I got you, and I think that view is so cynical, it shows that cynicism has corrupted your logical process, at least with some subjects.

...the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos. 
OK. I have not argued against your opinion here. I do know that no one, in all my years of experience, has sought a State's incarnation of "marriage". People marry simply because they love each other and want to be together. There are exceptions of course.

I am not trying to debunk your argument, I'm saying it is besotted with cynicism. Some arguments are so far beyond the pale, they need no debunking.

Now that I know how you think on the threads topic, I don't think there is anything I could say to you that would get past your cynic filters unscathed. And I don't care if you disagree, I expect you to.

It isn't intended as an ad hominem, but I can understand why you would think it was. There is no helping that.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
You think "skeptical" is more, apropos, your thoughts on marriage show that  cynicism is more correct.
No, it isn't, but repeating this to you at this point is an exercise in futility.

You demonstrated it yourself. And yes, I know you don't think you did.

You're projecting.

It has more relevance than that, and I decide it's relevance, not you.
No, the subject of your topic determines relevance--not you.

"This" is always what you say it is, right? Royal pronouncements don't work with me A. You admitted entertaining this tangent. If it is derailment, it's you doing the derailment.
I'm complicit in your derailment since I'm entertaining it, certainly. But I'm not the one derailing; that would be you. You're the one who brought up the tangent, and to my chagrin, I entertained it. Now, you're hinging this entire argument on this farce of a back and forth alleging that my "cynicism" on the subject of marriage leaves you the impression that I'm emotionally incapable of carrying out a rational discussion. If you are offended by my perspective on, once again, legal marriage, then to each his own. However, let's avoid any pretenses that our views on marriage is at all relevant to the subject you brought up. It's clear that you are avoiding the defense of your position.

I brought up the topic. I made the thread, why would I derail what I brought up?
Read above.

No sir. You're the one who claimed it was an argument to exploit a panic.
It's not a claim. Here we'll examine your own words:

Earlier in his presidency, the people of New York and California said Trump was not welcome in their states. Their governors instructed state officers not to cooperate with federal officials.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

Childish hypocrites, the lot of them. And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.

Outside of the fluff of "weakness" and "meeting challenges" you are arguing that this "panic" should be exploited to make a point to the governors of the so-called sanctuary states, and "knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high [horses.]"

This again is your cynicism coloring your perspective. You even think you know my intent.
Let's take a second to appreciate the irony of this statement. You allege that I think I know your intent--even though I made no such statement. Just before then, you clearly expressed knowing how I think. You are once again projecting.

Federal officers, to my knowledge, have always been, and will always be, outside of my emotional capacity. Whatever that means.

Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.

I do not think impressions are irrelevant.
That is an impression; hence, irrelevant.

The talking point about "seem" is an old clunker meant to sound better than the usefulness it affords.
"Seem" is that which you "feel" you think you know; it isn't that which you know; hence, irrelevant.

While that itself is questionable
It isn't questionable. I have intimate experience with the manner in which I submit arguments. Whether you believe this or not is of no consequence.

even if true, would not mean your argument are always true
Non sequitur. Never mentioned "truth."

But it shows high esteem to judge the logical consistency of your arguments with an absolute.
I practice logical consistency consistently; "esteem" is of no consequence.

They aren't necessarily.
Then there's no need for "but."

How is that an ad hominem? It's like observing that a person is tall. But being autistic can interfere with smooth communication.
And you have "observed" my "autism"? You were able to diagnose a bio-neurological disability through an online discussion? Your observation is full of crap, and nothing more than a ploy to qualify my arguments by alleging disability. That's the reason it's an ad hominem.

What fact? It was provided after I predicted you would provide it.
No it wasn't.

Yes I am, as demonstrated in your comments about marriage, sorry, "legal" marriage. So what? You are alleging exploiting a panic. That is how debates work. Allegations are not wrong because you disagree with them.
Allegations aren't wrong because I disagree. Allegation are unsubstantiated. But given that I'm the sole authority on my outlook and perspective, I could in fact tell you that you're wrong because I say so. However, since my outlook and perspective are irrelevant, it could be argued, and is argued, that your focus on the aforementioned is an extension of your ad hominem.


And it is your cynicism that causes you to view legal marriage that way, the same cynicism causing you to think my motivation for my suggestion to Trump was petty politics.
I'm not concerned with your motivations; I'm concerned with your argument; and your argument is petty; the subject is political. Draw whatever conclusions you want.

If you actually believe this, then you are autistic.
Argumentum ad hominem.

Entertain whatever you will, but please stop claiming I'm the one trying to derail my own topic when its you entertaining a tangent.
When you stop derailing the topic, I'll stop stating that you're derailing the topic.

I do remember you behaving as though it was.
You're projecting.

You should be aware this is simply your opinion.
Redundant.

Every legally marrying couple should "love" the way you think they should, otherwise it's prostitution.
Non sequitur.

I got you
Clearly you don't.

it shows that cynicism has corrupted your logical process, at least with some subjects.
My logical process isn't "corrupted." Logic does not conform to your offense or any other emotional state of yours.

I do know that no one, in all my years of experience, has sought a State's incarnation of "marriage". People marry simply because they love each other and want to be together. There are exceptions of course.
You're appealing to your own incredulity. I'm not concerned with your experience. I'm concerned with the legal framework surrounding marriage.

Now that I know how you think on the threads topic,
No, you don't. You're projecting and deflecting and derailing.

It isn't intended as an ad hominem, but I can understand why you would think it was.
Your intentions are irrelevant; that which I "think" about your intentions is irrelevant. The syntactical structure of your statements, as well as the conclusion drawn from your premises, inform argumentum ad hominem.

If it's all the same to you, I'm not going to continue this discussion on marriage--at least here. If you want to create a separate thread on the subject, I'd be willing to participate. However, here, I will only entertain discussion on the matter you discussed in the O.P. If not, then have a nice day.


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
It has more relevance than that, and I decide it's relevance, not you.

No, the subject of your topic determines relevance--not you.
I decide the subject of my topic, and I decide relevance to me, your disagreement is immaterial.

I'm complicit in your derailment since I'm entertaining it, certainly.
Thank you.

...you're hinging this entire argument on this farce of a back and forth alleging that my "cynicism" on the subject of marriage leaves you the impression that I'm emotionally incapable of carrying out a rational discussion.
No. You don't pay attention. You're so convinced that you're always logical, you fail to critically examine your positions.

I called you cynical before you expressed your views on marriage. In post #10 of this thread I said,

Your view here is very cynical, akin to calling marriage, prostitution. You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics.

You then went on in subsequent posts, to validate my judgment that you were hopelessly cynical, with that disjointed rant against "legal" marriage.

You could have dropped the tangent anytime you wanted. So please, your whining about it now is disingenuous.

However, let's avoid any pretenses that our views on marriage is at all relevant to the subject you brought up.
Your cynicism is relevant to your ability to rationally debate the subject I brought up.

It's clear that you are avoiding the defense of your position.
"Clear" to whom? You mean it "seems" that way to you. I countered every point you brought up. You simply insisted you were correct, using your royal privilege. Or you spouted some single word logical fallacy as if you were grading a paper and did not need to justify your opinion. 

...you are arguing that this "panic" should be exploited to make a point to the governors...
You placed "panic" in quotes because you are not yet dishonest enough to deny that you are the one calling it a panic.

I'm not even talking about the corona virus epidemic. My case against the governors and states was valid before anyone was infected in America.

..you clearly expressed knowing how I think. You are once again projecting.
You told me how you think A! I pay attention to what my opponents say, and I take them seriously.

While that itself is questionable...

It isn't questionable.
I questioned it.

I have intimate experience with the manner in which I submit arguments. Whether you believe this or not is of no consequence. 
I believe you have intimate experience with the manner in which you submit arguments. I just know you are not always  logical.

Non sequitur. Never mentioned "truth."
I did. Does it surprise you that I can mention things you didn't? So what if your argument is logically sound but not true? I'm concerned with true arguments, not logical wordplay.

I practice logical consistency consistently; "esteem" is of no consequence.
Another demonstration of your ignorance of human nature. Esteem is vitally important to logical consistency. But I am not trying to convince you, nor do I need your approval.

Then there's no need for "but."
If they aren't necessarily, then there are times when they are, as when autism impedes ones ability to understand people.

Your observation is full of crap, and nothing more than a ploy to qualify my arguments by alleging disability. That's the reason it's an ad hominem.
Your observation, of course, is royally immune from being crap. Playing the victim doesn't become you, and such ploys never work on me. Reality does not reside between your ears.

But given that I'm the sole authority on my outlook and perspective, I could in fact tell you that you're wrong because I say so. 
You can tell me, but since your telling me does not make me wrong, I can dismiss your perspective as subjective crap.

I'm not concerned with your motivations; I'm concerned with your argument;
The fact that you entertained a tangent shows you are a poor judge of your concerns.

...and your argument is petty; the subject is political. Draw whatever conclusions you want.
I did draw the conclusion I wanted, and you appear to be unhappy that I did.

I'm not concerned with your experience. I'm concerned with the legal framework surrounding marriage. 
And I was concerned with marriage. How many couples do you think are thinking of a "legal framework" when they marry? My experience informs my knowledge. It does not change because you lack concern.

Your view on marriage is cynical. It is cynical because YOU are cynical. Your cynicism pervades this argument about governors and sanctuary cities. These are simple facts borne out by the things you've said. No one is insulting you or derailing anything.

Your royalty simply isn't recognized here.

...that which I "think" about your intentions is irrelevant.
Then why have you wasted your last 3 posts telling me that which you "think" about my intentions?

But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.

I'm not going to continue this discussion on marriage....
Good. I told you that you could drop it anytime you wanted.

I will only entertain discussion on the matter you discussed in the O.P. If not, then have a nice day.
I've addressed every point you raised against the OP. If you have no rebuts, I have nothing to add.

And I have already said your cynicism makes you unable to rationally discuss the OP's topic. Perhaps it is best you quit before you fall further behind.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ethang5
I decide the subject of my topic,
Redundant.

I decide relevance to me,
Relevance to "you" is of no consequence. Relevance to the subject matter is.

"Clear" to whom? You mean it "seems" that way to you.
That's not an "impression"; that's what you have done. You avoided defending your position by arguing nothing more than fluff.

You placed "panic" in quotes because you are not yet dishonest enough to deny that you are the one calling it a panic.
I put "panic" in quotes because it's media-induced. I mentioned as much already.

I'm not even talking about the corona virus epidemic.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?
Those are your words.

You told me how you think A!
No, I didn't. You're merely projecting your impressions.

I questioned it.
Your questions are of no consequence as they are not informed by any understanding of logical consistency. Having questions does not make it questionable.

I believe you have intimate experience with the manner in which you submit arguments. I just know you are not always  logical.
My arguments always are logical. All arguments are logical. That's not what I argued. I argued that my arguments are always logically consistent.But you have demonstrated no capacity for logical consistency. You merely present impressions as observations.

I did. Does it surprise you that I can mention things you didn't?
Then don't ascribe to them to me, and stop forming non sequiturs. If you intend to mention truth, then own it at the very beginning.

Esteem is vitally important to logical consistency.
No, it's not. You haven't demonstrated any capacity for logical consistency, let alone any grasp of it.

Your observation, of course, is royally immune from being crap.
Irrelevant. My royal descent has no significance. And we're not discussing my alleged "crap." We're discussing yours. (This isn't monkey see, monkey do.) And yes, your argument is full of crap. You have little to no justification for your position other than the fluff you argued, and you're attempting to disqualify my arguments by alleging disability (i.e. autism.)

Playing the victim doesn't become you, and such ploys never work on me.
You have not victimized me, and therefore there's no sound premise as to why I'd play a victim. I'm calling you out on your crap because your arguments are full of crap.

You can tell me, but since your telling me does not make me wrong, I can dismiss your perspective as subjective crap.
It's indeed subjective, but it's not crap. You see, because it is subjective, you are in no position to tell me how I think. I am the sole subject of my experience, perspective, outlook and perception. Do you understand what subjectivity means? Or are you just ineptly conflating it with opinion?

The fact that you entertained a tangent shows you are a poor judge of your concerns.
The fact that you entertain ad hominem arguments demonstrates you have no grasp of my concerns.

I did draw the conclusion I wanted, and you appear to be unhappy that I did.
I'm not preoccupied with my emotions. You are the only one that is.

I've addressed every point you raised against the OP. If you have no rebuts, I have nothing to add.
No, you didn't. You argued fluff about patriotism and unspecified long-term benefits; then you backpedaled and initiated this farce by focusing on this  "cynicism" you allege I have, and dismissing any potential in-depth discussion we could've had by entertaining a pretense that I'm far too emotionally incapable--or "autistic"--of "rationally" discussing this subject, thereby leaving you to relinquish any duty you have to substantiate your position. And rather than take a lesson from your inept arguments, you engage your defense mechanism by deflecting, derailing, projecting, and attempts at insult. If you have no intention of debating this seriously, then state so. I'm going to entertain your "tats" for my "tits" anymore.

Enjoy your day, sir.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Hi, Athias. You're back!

I'm going to entertain your "tats" for my "tits" anymore. 
Yeah you said that already. You can only make a dramatic exit once.

Enjoy your day, sir.
I always do A. I would say the same to you except I know cynics are full of angst, and therefore, basically unhappy. So I'll say instead, try to enjoy your day.