Forums - Politics Discussion - Is David Hogg just a bully now? Uses followers to go on personal vendetta.

David Hoggs personal vendetta is...

Justified. I support it. 44 57.89%
 
Unjustified. I don't support it. 26 34.21%
 
I'm unsure. 1 1.32%
 
Other, comments... 5 6.58%
 
Total:76
NightlyPoe said:
Teeqoz said:
She attempts a personal attack due to presumably political reasons. She faces consequences because enough people don't think that's acceptable.

Nope, seems fair to me.

As it is fair to think that an overreacting teen bully and his enablers who are backing his maladjusted behavior for their own political purposes are the ones that are truly despicable.

Like I said before, trying to hurt someone because they had to the gall to say you're "whining" is the mark of being a terrible person.


I hardly see what makes him a bully, but both sides have some fair points. So all in all, it's fair game. Of course it sucks to be on the losing side (as Ingraham is in this case), but that's reality for you. I'm sure if a large group of people contacted those advertisers in support of Ingraham, that could change the outcome, but that wasn't the case.



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Aura7541 said:

However, the credibility of one's argument is independent from the reputation of the platform where the argument came from. To discredit someone's point because it comes from a platform that you consider to be biased or is objectively biased is ad hominem. You're not attacking the argument at that point; you're just attacking the person making the argument. This also applies to the notion that because a person has made biased statements in the past that this statement that he just made is also biased. You can definitely argue that because of Ben's history, when he makes an argument, it is likely that it is very biased. However, it does not guarantee that the argument is biased because there's a chance that he makes a good point. That is why we should always judge arguments in a case-by-case basis, not on a reputation basis.

If you want to continue this discussion, I'm happy to do it on PM because I already made myself clear that the thread is going off topic and the topic of the discussion should stick to David Hogg and Laura Ingraham.

That is true. I was trying to make a nice pot shot so that I could rest a case without getting too detailed. Truthfully, I have many issues with his stances - although I don't think he is dumb at all, he is obviously somewhat intelligent. I could write an entire thread about nearly every issue he covers though, so I found it most convenient to post a single argument that was convenient in expressing one of many ways the man is not as praise-worthy as seems. Saying that it is an ad hominem attack is true, then again the post I was replying to was a justification and praise of Ben Shapiro - pretty much the same thing I did, only positive. 

Anyways yeah, this is not the place to discuss this. 

" although I don't think he is dumb at all, he is obviously somewhat intelligent."

that's putting it mildly, the man eats the regressive left for breakfast and that's a fact



David Hogg is just a punk that needs his legs broken



Teeqoz said:
NightlyPoe said:

As it is fair to think that an overreacting teen bully and his enablers who are backing his maladjusted behavior for their own political purposes are the ones that are truly despicable.

Like I said before, trying to hurt someone because they had to the gall to say you're "whining" is the mark of being a terrible person.


I hardly see what makes him a bully, but both sides have some fair points. So all in all, it's fair game. Of course it sucks to be on the losing side (as Ingraham is in this case), but that's reality for you. I'm sure if a large group of people contacted those advertisers in support of Ingraham, that could change the outcome, but that wasn't the case.

You don't see how using social power to hurt someone professionally for a minor offense makes one a bully?

I also have my doubts that the people who backed Hogg outnumbered those backing Ingraham.  Companies that insert themselves into these spats without good cause (O'Reilly being an example of good cause) tend to do themselves damage by taking sides.  See Dicks having trouble after they changed their gun policy.

But that's neither here nor there.  The question is to each person.  Simply looking at something and saying that a person was in the right because they "won" is silly.  Bullies win socially all the time.  You'd basically be justifying every mean girl who ever lived who mentally and socially tortured someone because of a perceived slight or threat.  As adults we shouldn't be handing such power to a high school student and when they use such power, we should be condemning him and all around him.



Puppyroach said:
John2290 said:

Ben shapiro is such a clear thinker, he not only makes great points that are fair and not based in emotion, it's incredible how he can seperate his emotion to keep fact and clear points at the forefront of the discussion. This man should be applauded for what he does. He completely made all of my thoughts on this matter and manifested them in such a clearer manner than I have been able to muster.

 

 

 

Not only that but he is also very entertaining  and witty on the spot in his public speaking, glad I didn't write this guy off as a far right wing nutter, almost did.. He's not even close to that. What an incredible thinker andfair debater, doing this daily. 

 

A guy who believes in magical creatures (religion) is hardly the standard-bearer for separating emotion and argument. He also seem to be very irrational in regards to the whole gun argument and way to apologetic when it comes to Trump. 

You don't know what you're talking about.

Saying a religious person is hardly the standard-bearer for separating emotion and argument is hilarious considering the other side of his positions think there's a endless number of genders and that's there's no physical differences between women and men.

Ben is very good at debating hence why lefties resort to ad hominem like calling him a nazi. He's plenty rational on guns. He uses actual data to back up his positions instead of relying on emotional arguments with nothing backing it.

He hates Trump and doesn't give him any passes. He does like a good bit of Trump's policies though. 

David would learn how to be rational from Ben and how to debate with facts.



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
Teeqoz said:


I hardly see what makes him a bully, but both sides have some fair points. So all in all, it's fair game. Of course it sucks to be on the losing side (as Ingraham is in this case), but that's reality for you. I'm sure if a large group of people contacted those advertisers in support of Ingraham, that could change the outcome, but that wasn't the case.

You don't see how using social power to hurt someone professionally for a minor offense makes one a bully?

I also have my doubts that the people who backed Hogg outnumbered those backing Ingraham.  Companies that insert themselves into these spats without good cause (O'Reilly being an example of good cause) tend to do themselves damage by taking sides.  See Dicks having trouble after they changed their gun policy.

But that's neither here nor there.  The question is to each person.  Simply looking at something and saying that a person was in the right because they "won" is silly.  Bullies win socially all the time.  You'd basically be justifying every mean girl who ever lived who mentally and socially tortured someone because of a perceived slight or threat.  As adults we shouldn't be handing such power to a high school student and when they use such power, we should be condemning him and all around him.

I never said anyone was right because they won. Not sure where you're getting that from. I said both sides had fair points and that it was fair game, though Ingraham felt the most impact. Ingraham clearly went looking for a conflict, but she just didn't expect to lose. That does not at all equate to sanctioning bullying and mental and social torture.

He provided an avenue (calling her sponsors) for people that disliked her course of action (making an unprovoked personal attack against a 17 year old mass-shooting survivor, which is bound to attract negative public attention, because when you think about it, that's a pretty twisted thing to do) to make their voices heard. It seems to me like she hurt herself professionally.

To me it's irrelevant wether he's a high school student or not. His actions should be judged based on their own merits, not based on how old he is, and I don't see anything wrong with his actions in this case.



Hey now... Russian bots are supporting Ingraham. So there is that.



This kid is scaring the shit out of some "adults", hit them in the pocket and they calm the fuck down like that stupid hypocrite Laura



 

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
This kid is scaring the shit out of some "adults", hit them in the pocket and they calm the fuck down like that stupid hypocrite Laura

Dont worry, the adults in the room will win in the end. They wont change a damn thing about gun laws that matters, so in a few weeks Hoggs can go back to class having achieved nothing but 15 minutes of fame.



contestgamer said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
This kid is scaring the shit out of some "adults", hit them in the pocket and they calm the fuck down like that stupid hypocrite Laura

Dont worry, the adults in the room will win in the end. They wont change a damn thing about gun laws that matters, so in a few weeks Hoggs can go back to class having achieved nothing but 15 minutes of fame.

They win and then they can go back to enjoying more gun attack school shootings every month !!!

 

YAY !!! GUNS GUNS GUNS !!!