Quantcast
Trump cancels North Korea summit

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump cancels North Korea summit

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Maxosaurus-rex said:

Sure, it's flaming occupy democrats Facebook page. That page is a cess pool

Possible (in fact, I never knew about that facebook page before, so I wont agree or deny on it), but saying that most of those who ain't thinking the same way you do got that from that page is an insult, especially after you said it's a cesspool.

Yeah political discussion/debates on the internet mostly end when feelings get hurt .

I do think alot of people with political knowledge ,democrat or other does not put alot of weight into info from facebook .



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Possible (in fact, I never knew about that facebook page before, so I wont agree or deny on it), but saying that most of those who ain't thinking the same way you do got that from that page is an insult, especially after you said it's a cesspool.

Yeah political discussion/debates on the internet mostly end when feelings get hurt .

I do think alot of people with political knowledge ,democrat or other does not put alot of weight into info from facebook .

Hence where the insulting part comes from.



Maxosaurus-rex said:

If you notice, I'm the only one presenting sources instead of making baseless political rant posts

I am not saying you haven't. Just asking you not to delve into logical fallacies as that can and will erode your argument.

Maxosaurus-rex said:

You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem, bud. And turn a blind eye to the facts if you want. Doesn't mean they aren't there. 

Ad Hominem is where you attack someones character, motive, or other attribute (I.E. Political stance) in order to undermine their position or evade the discussion, which is most certainly pertinent to you with some of your prior statements.

I tend to call people out on logical fallacies so that the discussion can move onto something more constructive.


Kaneman! said:

Nuclear demilitarization would need to be priority, no matter what the country's political stance towards the USA is.


I agree. But the world tends to be politically complex, which prevents such an ideal scenario from occurring.
I am actually hoping that Australia will go the Nuclear Power route at some point, but we seem to be Nuclearphobes.

 



Pemalite said:
Maxosaurus-rex said:

If you notice, I'm the only one presenting sources instead of making baseless political rant posts

I am not saying you haven't. Just asking you not to delve into logical fallacies as that can and will erode your argument.

Maxosaurus-rex said:

You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem, bud. And turn a blind eye to the facts if you want. Doesn't mean they aren't there. 

Ad Hominem is where you attack someones character, motive, or other attribute (I.E. Political stance) in order to undermine their position or evade the discussion, which is most certainly pertinent to you with some of your prior statements.

I tend to call people out on logical fallacies so that the discussion can move onto something more constructive.


Kaneman! said:

Nuclear demilitarization would need to be priority, no matter what the country's political stance towards the USA is.


I agree. But the world tends to be politically complex, which prevents such an ideal scenario from occurring.
I am actually hoping that Australia will go the Nuclear Power route at some point, but we seem to be Nuclearphobes.

 

Someone's sources =/= their character or individuality. And yes, sources are on the table for criticism of bias and credibility 



Maxosaurus-rex said:

Someone's sources =/= their character or individuality. 

I think you may need to re-read my post again. ;)



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Maxosaurus-rex said:

Someone's sources =/= their character or individuality. 

I think you may need to re-read my post again. ;)

Since you got me before the edit, someone's sources are not above criticism. 



Maxosaurus-rex said:
Pemalite said:

I think you may need to re-read my post again. ;)

Since you got me before the edit, someone's sources are not above criticism. 

We can most certainly criticize sources. - Especially if said sources lack citations for their various claims.



Expecting the worst President of our times to end a 60+ year stand off with North Korea is too much to ask. Only a few terrible incompetent Presidents from the 19th century compare to Trump as worst President of all time.



We dont uave all the facts on what happened, which demands were not fullfilled or if any of the parts just haged all of a sudden. I dont think trump just played Kim. Something else happened. Very difficult to have an opinion based only on what the media is bringing us.



Pemalite said:
Maxosaurus-rex said:

Since you got me before the edit, someone's sources are not above criticism. 

We can most certainly criticize sources. - Especially if said sources lack citations for their various claims.

OK then, and in order for most of these posts to make sense is by having an incredibly bias source or intentionally obfuscating the facts (most likely from bias).

 

NK has been well covered for decades. We know their tactics and know their games. We know that there was at least a partial collapse of the test site.  We know the last explosion was on a massive scale. We know it created earthquakes following it. We know that it left the site with structural damage and only a matter of time before catastrophe occurs if not decommissioned. We know they dug another tunnel before announcing their intention to dismantle it. We know north korea has invited press to view their theatrics before. They could easily already have a second site. People are so blinded by their disdain for one man that they are actually accepting the NK propaganda as truth.