3RU7AL

If the Palin voters had strong reason to believe that Begich would be eliminated and not enough Begich people would go to Palin the tactical option would be to put Begich as 1st and Palin as second despite Palin being their ideal choice.

“and detailing your frustration and your personal perception of "hypocrisy” is a textbook ad hominem attack”

I may be a simple man, but to me - suggesting I am attacking someone personally because I’m frustrated, or I have a perception they are a hypocrite: sort of seems to qualify exactly per your specifications, no?

Someone can claim all day and all night that an argument is a straw man, and insult them for being an intellectual coward.

it’s kinda weird that you feel that demonstrating an insult does not apply to you, but actually applies to the person making the insult is an Ad hominem worthy of challenge - but the original insult was not.

any negative comment on the person and or their motives is technically and ad hominem attack

No it’s not.

“Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself”

I am very much one for intellectually honesty.

X is not allowed to prevent entry, service, or participation of individuals or groups based on what they are, believe, or practice.

I don't know,

I assume such laws already exist, that prevent a location, city, county, state, so on from denying individuals or groups based on what they are, believe, or practice.

Isn't it a problem then that the second choices (if any) of the Palin people are not considered?

I am all for high minded moral arbiters

obsessing about the right or best way to argue and injecting themselves into other conversations:

but when this criticism is levied so unevenly, one cannot help but suspect that the reasons for objection is more about the who than the what.

Wally me through your logic here: Person A offers a litany of insults against Person B, to which Person B responds by explaining (a) the accusations are invalid, (b) they actually express the Person A own behaviour.

Attacking me for my using an Ad Hominem, rather than making any attempt to attack my point - that is, ironically, very much an ad hominem

I suppose one could make laws that don't allow such, though that's a bit heavy handed,

If you want to break that up per say then you need to make sure that people that move out of that area are comfortable where they move to. 

You go from . 

Itilans to Jamaicans and Russians and the rest then bammmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You say  Black people  and black teachers.

are you generally more interested with

mincing words

or, are you generally more interested in

exchanging ideas

Ideas - specifically the critiquing of positions.

It would be an Ad Hom if my charge of hypocrisy was instead of place of attacking his point.

Why? On what possible grounds do you have to judge or estimate the value, worth or benefit I place on pressing someone on a point they ignore?

Especially given that you are not following your own advice.

Depreciation of a house is inevitable over time. Property values of the land do not inevitably rise. Especially property in a city where crime is on the rise.

ok, this makes a lot of sense if you don't care what the person you're interacting with intended

How does me caring - or not - change the validity of what I said?

Just saying, somebody has to build and pay for new housing.

in favor of silly childhood insults.

Can i get a re-wording on ( self segregation ) 

A great many of the houses that existed in the 70's are no longer existing.

this is a purely voluntary interaction

And this is relevant how?

If you read my post - I am pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who refuses to engage on a point multiple times, resorts to name calling, and has a propensity for making excuses and capitulating on responses - also calling someone an intellectual coward.

That he is not forced  to respond to me explaining why he is a colossal unmitigated hypocrite in this specific respect, is largely irrelevant.

Thus far he’s refused to clarify what he actually meant - so the only thing I have to work with is what he said.

I also explained how the only reasonable interpretation of what he said is exactly as I paraphrased.

This would be true regardless of what he intended.

When everyone must be racist, then no single person can uniquely be a racist.

I like the idea of getting a lot of integration going on, it is best for all.

Also, ethnicism isn't a work in Merriam Webster's dictionary which, once again, proves my point. Because, in this discussion, it doesn't exist as a word since merriam Webster is being used for definitions. So it is impossible for people to be something that doesn't exist.

blacks chose to stay in America

So what you're saying...." = classic strawman fallacy.

Only if I misrepresent what you’re saying, which I didn’t - you have yet to say how I actually did that

I presume, however, that you’re going to round off this exchange by calling me names and refusing to actually respond to any of the arguments, throwing out a number of excuses as to why you wont respond; and then capitulate like you have in every other thread.

Seafood wishes we killed them with a assult weapon. 

Come on why would you come up with your own numbers when you can just use the ones I posted. Is it not true that it wouldn't matter who the Palin voters put as their second due to the elimination of Begich? Isn't it a problem then that the second choices (if any) of the Palin people are not considered?

But do you have to disqualify senior citizens. Their opinions maybe less relevant but they want to be liked too.

statistically, retired people are more likely to vote

Isn’t that good for democracy?

I didn't say remain a atheist. 

I dont have to not not believe in god. 

You dont go from christian to atheist.

Being a atheist fells like nothing until you are asked and or realize you are what they consider a atheist.  

Im a atheist now. 

And now i am a Muslim.  

Buttttttt  watch me become a Christian.  

And I'm a Christian. 

10

And a 9.

And a 8.

And a 7

6

5

4,3,2,and a 1. 

' Catches breath '   

See that shlt.    I too like to live dangerously.  

Inter denominational. 

Multi denomination at once. 

I crouch down , place my head between my kness. 

Then i simply tilt foward. 

Well thats how i roll.  

It was an monochromatic echo chamber (i.e. age 15-30, male, libertarian).  But I liked it.

But do you have to disqualify senior citizens. Their opinions maybe less relevant but they want to be liked too.

Just look at the damage Harry and Meghan have caused.

That does not follow. Elimination is based on first preference votes which allows this nonsense:

She's been there forever. Part of the furniture I guess. Kinda like you are here. I rarely read your posts. When I do, I don't think much of them. Actually if I were to pick one of you to die, it'd be you, but I'd prefer you both lived forever. Or something. 

I am sure a lot of voters left the number 2 and 3 choice blank because they didn't understand how it works. (33%)

Hard lesson for the voters, but now they know to pick 2 and 3, or their vote may not count.