Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I bet I could give a thousand reasons why I think Obama is not worthy of my trust, I bet I could give a thousand reasons why I don't support his view concerning the role of the federal government, I bet I could give a thousand reasons why I don't support some of his important policy initiatives, I bet I could include some reasons why I think he has been good for American politics (i.e.-motivating many young people to get involved in politics when they would have been apathetic), and the best response I would get is - "you don't like Obama"... "Obama=bad"..., therefore suggesting, that is the only reason I don't support him and his policies. That is pretty weak.
|
You could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you think Obama is not worthy of my trust, you could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you don't support his view concerning the role of the federal government, you could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you don't support some of his important policy initiatives, you could give a thousand erroneous reasons why you think he has been good for American politics (i.e.-motivating many young people to get involved in politics when they would have been apathetic), and then when the questionable logic of your erroneous assertions was exposed, you'd just change the subject or feign ignorance.
Quote:
The only thing weaker, in my opinion, is when respondents ignore issues and focus on personal attacks. Which, I bet will follow. I don't think they can resist it, can you?
|
Right, well by your own definition, your propensity to ignore structural or logical issues with your own arguments is weak. It is not a personal attack to point out flaws in your argument. It is not a personal attack to point out specific patterns of behavior that impede meaningful dialogue.
The only reason I responded like I did in post 528 is because I've learned my lesson about trying to engage you on anything political. Arguing with you is a waste of time, because you seem to be unable to acknowledge shortcomings in your perspective (or to persuasively rebut criticisms of your perspective) when they are pointed out. I don't feel like being a sounding board for your half-baked ideas, even on the occasions when I agree with them.