By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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
Insidb on 03 April 2018

Country Mouse writes post; City Mice comment.

America in 2018 ensues.



Around the Network
Puppyroach on 03 April 2018
Aeolus451 said:
Puppyroach said:

What are you even talking about? Being an atheist has nothing to do with what opinions you have on gender and physical differences. You are mistaking atheist with some leftists, and they have nothing to do with each other.

OT: The right, namely people like Laura Ingraham, Ben Shapiro, Tomi Lahren and the rest, are the biggest snowflakes in the world but are never shy from punching down on other people. The moment a 17 year old kid pushes back, they start tcorrectly. 

You were saying that religious people are illogical and therefore their pov means less. I gave examples of people that are on the other side of him politically who believe in things that are just as illogical as a believing in a god. In other words, the very thing you're trying to use to discredit others' opinions can easily be used on your side. It's a stupid way to debate.

You don't know how to use snowflake correctly. Which side is constantly protesting and acting like it's the end of world? Which side wants safe spaces and microaggression warnings on everything? Which side considers jokes to be hate speech?

You are still giving confused statements. Yes, there are some people that are on the left that has those views you say, but that is the opposite side of a political spectrum, not whether or not the believe in a God or not. If they do have their beliefs about gender to be about some magical forces giving us our genders and not nature, then they should be treated with the same doubt. 

And what sides are you talking about in terms of snowflakes? I was talking about the people on the right that are like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham that act like a victim in so many cases. Are there some people on other political sides that act the same way? Of course, and they are equally wrong. But we are not talking about them, we are talking about Laura Ingraham and Ben Shapiro. 



Aeolus451 on 03 April 2018
Puppyroach said:
Aeolus451 said:

You were saying that religious people are illogical and therefore their pov means less. I gave examples of people that are on the other side of him politically who believe in things that are just as illogical as a believing in a god. In other words, the very thing you're trying to use to discredit others' opinions can easily be used on your side. It's a stupid way to debate.

You don't know how to use snowflake correctly. Which side is constantly protesting and acting like it's the end of world? Which side wants safe spaces and microaggression warnings on everything? Which side considers jokes to be hate speech?

You are still giving confused statements. Yes, there are some people that are on the left that has those views you say, but that is the opposite side of a political spectrum, not whether or not the believe in a God or not. If they do have their beliefs about gender to be about some magical forces giving us our genders and not nature, then they should be treated with the same doubt. 

And what sides are you talking about in terms of snowflakes? I was talking about the people on the right that are like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham that act like a victim in so many cases. Are there some people on other political sides that act the same way? Of course, and they are equally wrong. But we are not talking about them, we are talking about Laura Ingraham and Ben Shapiro. 

I was trying to help you understand what a snowflake is. Calling Ben Shapiro a snowflake raises doubt on what your definition of snowflake is or your knowledge of Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro is likely the best debater on the right. Here's an example of him. There's alot of vids of him on youtube decimating  regular lefties to the best the left has to offer in debates, interviews on tv and in person.



contestgamer on 03 April 2018
fielding88 said:
contestgamer said:

Horrible situation, but there was a 5 minute warning provided to everyone there, yet you had families remain in the crowd with their CHILDREN there? That event is terrible, but it seems irresponsible (and perhaps immoral) to remain there with family when that warning is issued. Am I missing something? If I am then please educate me, but it appears that they were warned and the situation was avoidable?

The troops set up their machine guns on the roofs of the low buildings at the corners of the main square, closed off the access streets,[4]after a five-minute warning[1] opened fire into a dense Sunday crowd of workers and their families including children who had gathered, after Sunday Mass,[4] to wait for an anticipated address from the governor

You missed literally the rest of the sentence.

I didnt miss anything, what I dont understand is why the crowd wouldnt disperse when given a 5 min warning? From everything I read the crowd refused to disperse, leading to the massacre. I get why they were there in the first place, but not why they would remain when given a warning to leave. You seem to be the one missing that detail.



Aeolus451 on 03 April 2018
the-pi-guy said:
Aeolus451 said:

I was trying to help you understand what a snowflake is. Calling Ben Shapiro a snowflake raises doubt on what your definition of snowflake is or your knowledge of Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro is likely the best debater on the right. Here's an example of him. There's alot of vids of him on youtube decimating  regular lefties to the best the left has to offer in debates, interviews on tv and in person.

He might be the best debater, but debating isn't about being correct.  You can win debates by making up statements that the opposition can't counter.

The one video that I saw of Steven Crowder was far more impressive in terms of correctness, than what I've seen from Ben Shapiro.  

I watch a good bit of both of them and I like both of them. What vid of Crowder's are you referring to?

Ben is the best debater because he spews facts (information that's backed up) very quickly to counter others. I think that's because his show and debates are online. Anyone can look into what he says. Crowder also argues on facts but he's alot more entertaining about it.



Around the Network
Aeolus451 on 03 April 2018
the-pi-guy said:
Aeolus451 said:

I watch a good bit of both of them and I like both of them. What vid of Crowder's are you referring to?

Ben is the best debater because he spews facts (information that's backed up) very quickly to counter others. I think that's because his show and debates are online. Anyone can look into what he says. Crowder also argues on facts but he's alot more entertaining about it.

I saw a video where he debunks much of the Vox gun video.  

Ben doesn't win on facts.  He does plenty of broad generalizations and many half truths.  

Well, antigun stuff is fairly easy to debunk considering that most of them suggest we make laws that are already in place and they don't know basic information about guns like what the difference between semi-automatic and automatic is. Crowder did a good vid on it.

Yes, Ben does. He uses available data/statistics to argue his points. How much of his stuff have you watched?



fielding88 on 03 April 2018
contestgamer said:
fielding88 said:

The troops set up their machine guns on the roofs of the low buildings at the corners of the main square, closed off the access streets,[4]after a five-minute warning[1] opened fire into a dense Sunday crowd of workers and their families including children who had gathered, after Sunday Mass,[4] to wait for an anticipated address from the governor

You missed literally the rest of the sentence.

I didnt miss anything, what I dont understand is why the crowd wouldnt disperse when given a 5 min warning? From everything I read the crowd refused to disperse, leading to the massacre. I get why they were there in the first place, but not why they would remain when given a warning to leave. You seem to be the one missing that detail.

Once again, I'll refer you to the bolded statement. I'm giving you a reason that you're ignoring, so yes, you're not 'missing' it so much as disregarding it. In which case, we can't have a discussion. 



 I have a gaming channel! Come watch me be bad at games :)


o_O.Q on 03 April 2018
Puppyroach said:
Aeolus451 said:

You were saying that religious people are illogical and therefore their pov means less. I gave examples of people that are on the other side of him politically who believe in things that are just as illogical as a believing in a god. In other words, the very thing you're trying to use to discredit others' opinions can easily be used on your side. It's a stupid way to debate.

You don't know how to use snowflake correctly. Which side is constantly protesting and acting like it's the end of world? Which side wants safe spaces and microaggression warnings on everything? Which side considers jokes to be hate speech?

You are still giving confused statements. Yes, there are some people that are on the left that has those views you say, but that is the opposite side of a political spectrum, not whether or not the believe in a God or not. If they do have their beliefs about gender to be about some magical forces giving us our genders and not nature, then they should be treated with the same doubt. 

And what sides are you talking about in terms of snowflakes? I was talking about the people on the right that are like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham that act like a victim in so many cases. Are there some people on other political sides that act the same way? Of course, and they are equally wrong. But we are not talking about them, we are talking about Laura Ingraham and Ben Shapiro. 

"And what sides are you talking about in terms of snowflakes? I was talking about the people on the right that are like Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham that act like a victim in so many cases."

 

how can you seriously make this argument in good faith when the entire agenda of the left is to encourage every group under the sun besides white men to play the victim:

"women you have been oppressed by men for centuries so you need to tear down the patriarchy" (never mind that it was men who developed most of the advancements that allowed women to have the freedom they have today)

"blacks you have been oppressed by centuries by white people so you need to fear and hate them" (never mind that white people fought to abolish slavery)

"transgenders you have been oppressed by white man developed heteronomativity and biology so you need to tear down the patriarchy"

 

and i could go on all day with this retarded bullshit, come on man you aren't being fair here



contestgamer on 03 April 2018
fielding88 said:
contestgamer said:

I didnt miss anything, what I dont understand is why the crowd wouldnt disperse when given a 5 min warning? From everything I read the crowd refused to disperse, leading to the massacre. I get why they were there in the first place, but not why they would remain when given a warning to leave. You seem to be the one missing that detail.

Once again, I'll refer you to the bolded statement. I'm giving you a reason that you're ignoring, so yes, you're not 'missing' it so much as disregarding it. In which case, we can't have a discussion. 

I don't get your point and you're purposefully ducking the conversation. Did they receive or not receive warning? That seems to be a fairly critical point don't you think? I mean if I received that warning trust me I'd be somewhere else five min later. If I'm misunderstanding it then  elucidate me.



contestgamer on 03 April 2018
fielding88 said:
contestgamer said:

I didnt miss anything, what I dont understand is why the crowd wouldnt disperse when given a 5 min warning? From everything I read the crowd refused to disperse, leading to the massacre. I get why they were there in the first place, but not why they would remain when given a warning to leave. You seem to be the one missing that detail.

Once again, I'll refer you to the bolded statement. I'm giving you a reason that you're ignoring, so yes, you're not 'missing' it so much as disregarding it. In which case, we can't have a discussion. 

Your logic is basically that they ignored a warning that they would be killed to see the governor. Except that one can't see said governor when dead. So that is not a reason at all, especially not a reason of making martyrs out of children that have absolutely nothing to do with this mess. That's on the parents.