Republican Newsletter Calls For "Armed Revolution"

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

It's a fundamental disproof of a system of reasoning to show that it can be used properly to create an incorrect conclusion. Proof by contradiction is a form of this. I assumed that was valid reasoning, and then used your "valid" reasoning to create an untrue conclusion, from a true premise (Mao and Stalin killed millions) , to an untrue conclusion, based solely on the correct application of now known to be invalid conclusions. In response, to win the laymen of the crowd, you revert to esoteric symbols and technical speak that to the trained eye, is nonsense. Proof by contradiction is learned in a middle school geometry class, for heaven's sake.

I do not contest that I said it was racist, only that it was exclusively extremist. The fact that I said DEMOCRAT extremist (extremists within the Democratic Party) shows that the creation of it was racist, but motives contemporary people may in supporting it have may not be racist. "We want more blacks in college" is a questionable but permissible motive. "We need to lower the bar for blacks so that they can get in" is racist.

[Trotskylvania]

And the backpedalling and goalpost shifting begins.

You've not only mischaracterized my argument again, you've characterized your own, and given some half-ass defense to your claim that affirmative action was directly the work of racist democratic extremists, and that the Democratic Party continues to view minorities as less than human.

In other words, I'm done with you. Because apparently you don't understand that disproof by contradiction requires that you accurately model the logic of the opponents arguments.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

And the backpedalling and goalpost shifting begins.

You've not only mischaracterized my argument again, you've characterized your own, and given some half-ass defense to your claim that affirmative action was directly the work of racist democratic extremists, and that the Democratic Party continues to view minorities as less than human.

In other words, I'm done with you. Because apparently you don't understand that disproof by contradiction requires that you accurately model the logic of the opponents arguments.

When losing on the internet, pretend to ignore them?

I perfectly characterized your argument, and you're aware of it. As I've explained numerous times, goalpost shifting is asking for one standard of evidence and when such is met, asking for more evidence. You spent 20 minutes hammering away unicodes for those symbols, and you still fall victim to one of the classic blunders. First, never go in a land war in asia, Second, never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, and third, Use "moving the goalposts" correctly.

[Trotskylvania]

And the backpedalling and goalpost shifting begins.

You've not only mischaracterized my argument again, you've characterized your own, and given some half-ass defense to your claim that affirmative action was directly the work of racist democratic extremists, and that the Democratic Party continues to view minorities as less than human.

In other words, I'm done with you. Because apparently you don't understand that disproof by contradiction requires that you accurately model the logic of the opponents arguments.

When losing on the internet, pretend to ignore them?

I perfectly characterized your argument, and you're aware of it. As I've explained numerous times, goalpost shifting is asking for one standard of evidence and when such is met, asking for more evidence. You spent 20 minutes hammering away unicodes for those symbols, and you still fall victim to one of the classic blunders. First, never go in a land war in asia, Second, never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line, and third, Use "moving the goalposts" correctly.

No you didn't. You couldn't have, because you can't even characterize your own initial argument correctly. You tried to pretend you said something different from what you said.

No, comrade, moving the goalposts is a metaphor for changing the criterion of a contest while in progress. Which you have most emphatically done, through attempts to retcon your own argument.

You established terms, and provided an argument. You then keep shifting them so that no refutation of your argument can stand. That's moving the goalposts.

Tell me, how heavy are they?

[Sedgistan]

There's no point in trying to be nice about it, since you've already thrown the gauntlet. You're an abusive jerk who continues to survive on this forum only because the Moderators don't want to deal with the bawing that would come from banning your trolling ass. Unfortunately, reactionaries like you have become rather mainstream in America, so we're forced to suffer your ignorance out of a misguided feeling of fairness. Enemies of open societies like yourself have no place at the table in any sane society. Because you're just a short step away from Freikorps

Thing is, you also have an extensive record of flaming too. And taking that into account when addressing this flame, you've earned yourself a *** 7 day ban. *** Please note that if you continue to flame, we'll be deleting your nation.

[Notyet]

There's no point in trying to be nice about it, since you've already thrown the gauntlet. You're an abusive jerk who continues to survive on this forum only because the Moderators don't want to deal with the bawing that would come from banning your trolling ass. Unfortunately, reactionaries like you have become rather mainstream in America, so we're forced to suffer your ignorance out of a misguided feeling of fairness. Enemies of open societies like yourself have no place at the table in any sane society. Because you're just a short step away from Freikorps

Thing is, you also have an extensive record of flaming too. And taking that into account when addressing this flame, you've earned yourself a *** 7 day ban. *** Please note that if you continue to flame, we'll be deleting your nation.

I see that the idea of violating free speech in the name of courtesy is still going strong.

[Sedgistan]

I see that the idea of violating free speech in the name of courtesy is still going strong.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq#etiquette

It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

If you have any further complaints, take them to the Moderation forum.