Censure, but don't want to admit or defend it

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 23
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    Well, well, well. A consequence that is hardly surprising. I challenged a debate: «Resolved: In the United States, the survival of democracy depends on social censorship»
    but no one wanted to take it up. Your prog leaders have said as much: Hillaryous Balloon Girl, Nancy Pelostomy, Chucky Shoofly, Barry Oba'a, and the utterly forgettable [he forgets himself half the time], Joe Hidin' Biden.  What, you don't like my monikers for these folks? Who among you use your own names? Including me.






    So, I sit, waiting, in vain, for someone to take up your gauntlet. What, can't find the evidence that you know is there? Don't want to defend your heroes? Not even your current President, a former, two wannabes, and a mindless, defender of the faith who is happy to exhibit premature efactulation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOXFOpqkC88

    Some defenders of the faith. You must be proud.

    Or, does someone now, in the immortal, inciting words of Pelostomy, have "arrows in our quiver, and are ready to use them?"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pelosi-says-she-has-arrows-in-my-quiver-on-court-fight-but-unclear-what-they-are-11600725484

    Sorry; you're too late. I've proven my point and am done.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @fauxlaw
    Resolved: In the United States, the survival of democracy depends on social censorship

    Mockingbird media has redefined Democracy.

    Democracy now means establishment oligarchal Washington DC swamp. For example: "A threat to Democracy"

    Double-plus-good if you support "Democracy"
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,576
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @fauxlaw
    Your argument suffers from non-sequitur.

    Your argument is that the survival of American democracy does not rely on social censorship which is not a knowable proposition.  Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler all murdered their censors before they overthrew their respective democracies so we may be able to say with fairness that the death of censorship often precedes the death of democracy but that doesn't establish the obverse as true- that censorship keeps democracies alive.

    You give us six examples of responsible authorities in the know warning that Trump is an obvious and immediate threat to our democracy.  All six recommend constitutional remedies to the threat.  Not one of your sources argues that Trump ought not to be allowed to speak so how does this connect to your thesis?

    Nor have you established any evidence of censorship.  Trump complained of Twitter censorship for two weeks while fastidiously avoiding the most famous bully pulpit in the world:  the White House press conference.  Even now, Trump has only to walk out his front door and he can say whatever he wants on live television in less than 5 minutes.  Josh Hawley weeps about censorship in a front page editorial in the MSM.  What Republicans are demanding now is not the freedom to speak but rather the freedom to speak without contradiction- and that is the opposite of democratic discourse.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 930
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @fauxlaw
    The assertion that a particular individual is attacking democracy is not equivalent to democracy being unable to survive as a whole without censorship. If you wish someone to defend their words, you ought to use their words instead of conjuring up a nonsensical boogeyman.
  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 23
    Forum posts: 618
    3
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    --> @fauxlaw
    IIRC nobody accepted your debate because it was setup as a truism in your favor.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @oromagi
    censorship which is not a knowable proposition
    When must debates concern knowables? I see plenty of debates of unknowable subjects.

    Not one of your sources argues that Trump ought not to be allowed to speak so how does this connect to your thesis?
    As I said, I'm not debating. If you wanted to debate the subject, it was your choice to take. You chose not to. Do not now say I am debating, or that you have debate points to make. Too late, my friend.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Death23
    I've seen people lose debates on resolutions they created as truisms thinking they could get an easy win.

    Sometimes a person's house isn't quite in order as they think it is.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @dustryder
    You lost your chance to debate this. Do not do it now; that was not the purpose of my post. Does anybody read for comprehension anymore?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Death23
    Same response as to Dust.

    You don't think I thought of counter-arguments? If I can, anybody can. It's easy to call it a truism now, isn't it.  But if there are arguments to combat the resolution, it's not a trusim, is it? It does take some thought. Isn't that what we are, allegedly; critical thinkers? Maybe not.  But, you're right, nobody wanted to take a swing. Game over.
  • Danielle
    Danielle avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,491
    3
    3
    4
    Danielle avatar
    Danielle
    --> @fauxlaw
    Not a single one of those links in the OP stated the survival of democracy depends on social censorship. Nobody in the media, government, or on this website has been shown to make that claim, yet for some reason fauxlaw thinks we should have to defend his dramatic strawman and misrepresentation of the arguments.

    What people have actually said and would be willing to debate (i.e. twitter has a right and/or valid reason to ban Trump) has been proposed as an alternate resolution, but fauxlaw is too chicken shit to accept a debate that is not framed in such a way that he cannot automatically win through semantics alone. 

    One of the links posted in the OP has the headline US election: Obama says fraud claims undermining democracy. I would absolutely be willing to defend this in a debate; I agree that fraud claims undermine democracy. But fauxlaw will not debate us on things we actually believe. He has exhibited a petulant refusal  to have any debate  unless it is based on the manipulative resolution he crafted that none of us even agree with (lol) which is incredibly telling about how weak his overall position is and how  insecure he feels being asked to defend it generally. 

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Danielle
    Look, sweetie, did I say my links were debate arguments? No.
    Did I say I was going to debate the resolution via Forum? No.
    Is your chicken shit really fertilizer, or is it just anger that you missed an opportunity you now want to engage? only you can answer that.
    Sorry, as I did say, "you're too late."
  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 23
    Forum posts: 618
    3
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    --> @Danielle
    fauxlaw is too chicken shit to accept a debate that is not framed in such a way that he cannot automatically win through semantics alone. 
    Ah that's not true. I got him 3 times. He got me once.
  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 23
    Forum posts: 618
    3
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    --> @Greyparrot
    I've seen people lose debates on resolutions they created as truisms thinking they could get an easy win.

    Sometimes a person's house isn't quite in order as they think it is.
    Those are often my favorite ones to accept. I <3 to punish.
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,576
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @fauxlaw

    --> @Danielle
    Look, sweetie....
    You lost at sweetie
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @oromagi
    As did Danielle at chicken shit
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Death23
    Those are often my favorite ones to accept. I <3 to punish.

  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 23
    Forum posts: 618
    3
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    --> @Greyparrot
    What we really need to do is abolish the states altogether, and have a single gigantic state. It will be the United State of America. Then the states won't have a "race to the bottom" anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Death23
    Then the states won't have a "race to the bottom" anymore.

    Nah, it's always fun entertainment to pick on the states that are fucking up and losing population since Covid and Wokeness has taken most spectator sports off the table for mass consumption.

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Death23
    abolish the states altogether, and have a single gigantic state.
    And you have just abolished the need for a calming Senate, leaving us with a rambunctious, immature House of Representatives. That is what makes the USA unique among democratic states of the world. Why mess with what works until a few get so power hungry, they're willing to subvert the system. Work the system as designed, it's the best in the world.
    It's like my present debate challenge with people complaining that Christianity doesn't work. My argument is that it has never been properly tried. Same with American democracy. We don't give it a chance to work as designed. Maybe we should, for once.
  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 23
    Forum posts: 618
    3
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    --> @fauxlaw
    the need for a calming Senate
    The senate sucks.

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Death23
    Adam Schiff sucks.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,961
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @ethang5
    Whores suck.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @zedvictor4
    Adan Schiff could be a whore if we changed the definition of whore to mean offering sex for free.