Meme & Quote Thread

Hawk said:
How is modeling your political belief system after a President but not admitting that said President is/was flawed NOT precisely the point?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it's relevant unless you give Philip Roth an opportunity to expound on Japanese internment, or does every mention of a political figure have to come with a disclaimer?
 
57Brave said:
16195964_10154926952683550_8194217291649252038_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Seems sexist to me. Funny how liberals can't be accused of this.
 
mqt said:
Because not every single flaw, no matter how glaring it might be, needs to be mentioned in every conversation. I believe the idea of the quote was to discuss Trump. It's no different than not having to specify that you're an American but don't believe in slavery, because the nation allowed it previously.
Click to expand...

But in this conversation it's obviously appropriate.

You don't label someone 'humanly impoverished' in the same breath as lauding a figure who instituted American concentration camps during WWII. It doesn't work that way.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm not sure that it's relevant unless you give Philip Roth an opportunity to expound on Japanese internment, or does every mention of a political figure have to come with a disclaimer?
Click to expand...

How about the simple acknowledgement that every human is inherently flawed? Wouldn't that be more a more respectful approach than resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks on a man who has been leading this country for less than a week?
 
Hawk said:
How about the simple acknowledgement that every human is inherently flawed? Wouldn't that be more a more respectful approach than resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks on a man who has been leading this country for less than a week?
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but isn't it a little silly to suggest that Trump hasn't given ample reason to question his character? Or do you not think he has?
 
Hawk said:
But in this conversation it's obviously appropriate.

You don't label someone 'humanly impoverished' in the same breath as lauding a figure who instituted American concentration camps during WWII. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

1) we have becomes so "it's all about us" that we measure history by present day standards?
Washington owned slaves, fought and killed Native Alericans to seize their land and probably had some homophobic tendencies
Lincoln declared martial law and was by all accounts bi=polar
etc etc etc.
Roosevelt had many blind spots that in his lifetime that in their time were not viewed as blind spots.
of course you get my point

2) Phillip Roth for the past 50 years has made his living writing about impoverished humans.

And been by all accounts "successful"
...../////////////////////////////

Not surprised the part you missed was Trump's 77 word vocabulary.
77 - shoot , we could list them:
Left
Liberal
Leftist
Media (those first 4 are for thethe)
Crooked
Lyin'
Low Energy
Polls
Terrific
Pussy
Deal
Trade
Office
...

the usual articles
the
them
him
her
you
do
don't

wrong
nasty

there are 22 and I am stuck.
Hawk, you misunderstood Roth.
He was in fact giving Trump credit for his vocabulary

we need 55 more
 
Julio3000 said:
Perhaps so, but isn't it a little silly to suggest that Trump hasn't given ample reason to question his character? Or do you not think he has?
Click to expand...

I think that's a subjective question. What constitutes good character to you might not meet my standards - or vice versa. Of course, there's the question of whether it's truly useful to judge personal character in a discussion like this. Democrats chose not to judge the Clinton family. I can see why Republicans don't find it necessary to judge Trump's past. As far as his character as a President is concerned there's just not much to go on yet.

What's the single most egregiously questionable character trait Donald possesses in your eyes? Speaking too quickly? Some would construe that has having a good gut. Being petty? To some, that's refusing to lose. Egomaniacal? That's essentially capitalism for you.

I personally like the idea of Trump being a bull in a china shop and ****ing Washington up. It needs a stiff one up the ass, and apparently so do a lot of Americans if they are so willingly accepting of the status quo.

For that reason I've dismissed most of my trepidations. And there are still some, but they have more to do with disliking the isolationist tilt to his described FP than they do with some of this ludicrous 'nuclear codes' frothing at the mouth that I've heard/read.
 
57Brave said:
Washington owned slaves, fought and killed Native Alericans to seize their land and probably had some homophobic tendencies
Lincoln declared martial law and was by all accounts bi=polar
etc etc etc.
Roosevelt had many blind spots that in his lifetime that in their time were not viewed as blind spots.
of course you get my point
Click to expand...

I do. But it would appear that Mr. Roth doesn't. That's my point.

As for the 77 word thing (which I did address when I mentioned ad hominem attacks) ... it's wittyish - but I'd counter with this: It was enough to communicate with 63 million voters.

You can take up all further gripes with the Department of Education.
 
Hawk said:
I do. But it would appear that Mr. Roth doesn't. That's my point.

As for the 77 word thing (which I did address when I mentioned ad hominem attacks) ... it's wittyish - but I'd counter with this: It was enough to communicate with 63 million voters.

You can take up all further gripes with the Department of Education.
Click to expand...

I don't think an ad hominem attack is a fallacy when your argument is specifically that someone isn't equipped to do something. He wasn't arguing against Trump's positions, but Trump himself, so that logically follows.
 
Hawk said:
I think that's a subjective question. What constitutes good character to you might not meet my standards - or vice versa. Of course, there's the question of whether it's truly useful to judge personal character in a discussion like this. Democrats chose not to judge the Clinton family. I can see why Republicans don't find it necessary to judge Trump's past. As far as his character as a President is concerned there's just not much to go on yet.

What's the single most egregiously questionable character trait Donald possesses in your eyes? Speaking too quickly? Some would construe that has having a good gut. Being petty? To some, that's refusing to lose. Egomaniacal? That's essentially capitalism for you.

I personally like the idea of Trump being a bull in a china shop and ****ing Washington up. It needs a stiff one up the ass, and apparently so do a lot of Americans if they are so willingly accepting of the status quo.

For that reason I've dismissed most of my trepidations. And there are still some, but they have more to do with disliking the isolationist tilt to his described FP than they do with some of this ludicrous 'nuclear codes' frothing at the mouth that I've heard/read.
Click to expand...

Being a morally bankrupt narcissist that has taken advantage of the system at every possible turn, while being purposely deceptive to achieve whatever his goal is.
 
Hawk said:
How about the simple acknowledgement that every human is inherently flawed? Wouldn't that be more a more respectful approach than resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks on a man who has been leading this country for less than a week?
Click to expand...

All humans are terrible, though the extent varies. I may not believe in god, but I sure as hell believe humans are, by nature, fallen creatures.

I happen to believe Donald Trump is especially terrible, particularly fallen, et cetera; I think he's bad, I think his plans are mostly bad, and I think most of his reasons for doing things are bad. I believe, moreover, that I have good reasons to hold to this line of thinking—both with respect to President Trump's well-archived past, his words and actions over the course of his public-office campaign, and the policy decisions he has floated in his first few days in said office. Likewise, [MENTION=1810]mqt[/MENTION] is correct: ad hominem modes of attack are not inherently fallacious; if a person's character or past actions are relevant to their current claims, it's a logically-valid basis for argument.

But, as you said up-thread, what "constitutes good character" is not a matter of universal consensus; and I fully concede that you, or anyone else, might conceive dubious or even downright terrible things to be examples of "good". For one instance: I don't conflate pettiness with righteous obduracy. For another: I think that capitalism is, essentially, a morally-bankrupt system of house-ordering. As a final entry: I don't think Donald Trump has ever once peddled a truly worthwhile product on the sordid market—whether you're judging steaks or education or television or real-estate—so you'll excuse me if I clutch my trepidations like so many pearls, and bear little faith regarding the policy promises he's peddling now.
 
mqt said:
I don't think an ad hominem attack is a fallacy when your argument is specifically that someone isn't equipped to do something. He wasn't arguing against Trump's positions, but Trump himself, so that logically follows.
Click to expand...

If you read Roth's The Plot Against America (the subject-matter of the book is what prompted the New Yorker to interview him to begin with) it becomes clear that his attacks on Trump are based on ideological differences. In other words, if it were a multi-nationalist progressive with a 77-word vocabulary who was just elected we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
Hawk said:
If you read Roth's The Plot Against America (the subject-matter of the book is what prompted the New Yorker to interview him to begin with) it becomes clear that his attacks on Trump are based on ideological differences. In other words, if it were a multi-nationalist progressive with a 77-word vocabulary who was just elected we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm obviously not suggesting Roth agrees with Trump's policies, but an argument is an argument, and the specific one you're referencing was about Trump himself. Find me a quote that says the idea of leaving NATO is wrong because Trump has childlike hands and I'll join you.
 
mqt said:
I'm obviously not suggesting Roth agrees with Trump's policies, but an argument is an argument, and the specific one you're referencing was about Trump himself. Find me a quote that says the idea of leaving NATO is wrong because Trump has childlike hands and I'll join you.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but to me the ideological argument was implicit in the quoted passage. Both with the author's "Roosevelt Democrat" admission and the sideswipes of Nixon and Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top