TakeYouToTasker

The legislative branch legislates (or at least it's supposed to). You expect them to write laws which negatively impact themselves?

The problem is that the country is so divided right now that there is no position that works out for everyone.

I thought it would difficult for you to come up with a dumber idea than "The children of wealthy Americans are obligated to kill and be killed in a jungle thousands of miles away under morally dubious circumstances any time the government says so; and are cowards if they reject this premise," but here you are, proving me wrong. His fever dreams.

Not for the unfathomably stupid. For them it's a way of life.

I'm always hesitant to offer another persons work, but were I you, I'd ask Greg where his best, most current compendium is, and I'd ask his permission to use it.

Huh...

"I don't have to defend the ideas I seek to legislate to people who have penises." Interesting. I suppose people with penises won't be subject to the law then?

Why would the President drop a winning campaign issue leading into an election cycle? He's forcing Democratic candidates to come down (optics wise) against veterans, military service, traditional American values, and patriotism; which they will gladly do in their #resistance. It's a brilliant political strategy from one of the most politically adept individuals I've ever seen.

I'll leave it to you to explain how the morality of the United States entering into the Vietnam War is off topic, dumb, and nonsense as relates to American citizens rejecting selective service; especially against a 30 year historical back drop of rejecting and avoiding service in that war being celebrated as a moral uprising of a free society rejecting compelled service in a war of choice, and holding their government accountable.

Ohhh... the "Pee Wee Herman Gambit". I am chastened. Incidentally, do you believe that the United States was morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War?

This is a far dumber response than anything I had anticipated.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to hold a position they can't defend, and in the process scrap logic and inquiry in favor of subjective feelings generated through self-selected confirmation bias. That is some of the dumbest **** I've ever heard. But hey, I'm old. The kids today value "having any dumbass, unsupported opinion" over "making a well reasoned case, and being correct". I heard it here. And if that's actually the case, I'm in favor of letting the whole world burn, because they don't deserve to inherit it. You should have taken the out that Tom offered you.

... You aren't arguing semantics. You're denying the existence of formal logic, and declaring it to be an opinion. Good grief, I have never seen anyone so determined to defend a fantasy they fully admit isn't tied to facts. This is painful, and I'm actually starting to feel bad for you. Again, do better. I have observed that you are capable.

Why do you believe things which you have no evidence of? That's an emotional game played by children. So, now, after I have been patient with you, and tried to reason with you; keeping a friendly and conversational tone, you want to engage in misleading hyperbole and make personal attacks? Perhaps I was wrong in my observation that you were not ignorant and lazy. Do better.

The structure of formal logic, as practiced for thousands of years, is not my opinion. It is a factual accounting of how logic works. That you do not understand the difference between fact and opinion is your problem, not mine. Correct. There is no law that says you have to act logically. You are perfectly free to be as illogical as you'd like, though I'm not sure why you would find this to be an attractive option. It makes you look ignorant and lazy, and having spoken with you often enough, I know that you are neither of these things, and I expect better from you. What I have asked of you is not ridiculous. I have asked you to apply standard logic to your position. You, in turn, have asserted that standard logic is ridiculous. Let that sink in. This is an emotional response to an intellectual problem. You can't feel your way through things which require thought.

... Wut?

... It's not an "unreasonable standard for a Bills message board", it's the only acceptable standard for any serious discussion of ideas. People should be able to defend their positions when they stake them out as a positive assertion, which you have. This is not a new concept. It's been the foundation of logic for thousands of years. This is entirely backwards. Entirely. You made a positive assertion. YOU. You. No one forced you to do this. When you make a positive assertion, if you are challenged, it is your job to defend it. Again, you cannot do this. This should bother you immensely. You have no evidence that what you believe is true, yet you believe it anyway. The people who have sold you this bill of goods have presented you with no evidence that this is true, and you demanded no evidence from them. This should also bother you immensely. Why is there no evidence? There are volumes of evidence that social media platforms were designed, and are used, for population control. There are ongoing Congressional investigations, as well as investigations by the legislatures of other countries, including testimony that various platforms are used/have been used for the purposes of censorship, and promoting various ideas, ideologies, and narratives at the expense of others. This has been well documented on this website, so, once again, you are wrong. But really, that's not even relevant. What is relevant is that according to standard logic, when you have made a positive assertion, it is your job to prove that you are correct, not the readers job to prove you are wrong. You standard is illogical, because it must assume that every idea voiced by everyone is correct, and must be proven incorrect, else it stands as true. Think about the absurdity of this. Now, please demonstrate that what you have asserted is true.

That's not how logic works. Again, you should take a step back and realize that you are out on a limb, and don't understand what you're talking about. You offered an opinion, were challenged about it, and were unable to defend it by offering supporting evidence. You have no evidence that what you believe is true. That should bother you immensely. If something is true, there should be evidence that it is true; and if you make a positive assertion, formal logic dictates that it is incumbent upon you to defend it. You have not done so. That should also bother you immensely. Consider why it is that you cannot present evidence that what you say is true.

That's not the way logic works. You have staked out a positive position: "these sorts" of incidents are on the rise. It's up to you to defend the positive position you have taken. Again, you're free to be illogical; but it's not at all convincing because it's illogical.

That's correct, you did. And you are wrong. People are entitled to bad opinions, but not entitled to have them respected. Having an opinion does not magically validate what you believe. Conclusive evidence would validate it, which you have not demonstrated. Where you are being propagandized by people who directly benefit from racial strife, and artificially manufacture it to manipulate you. When someone holds something as a hard and fast belief, and are making their argument to other people, they should be able to defend that belief with hard data/evidence. If they can't, then they should question that belief, and question those who have propagated that narrative. 99% of the posters here probably should spend less time pontificating about things they haven't bothered to take the time to understand, and more time learning about those things.

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of a trend. Because you have been made aware of more of these incidents is not indicative that the incidents are happening with more frequency, only that you are being made aware more frequently. This is a false narrative you are being asked to buy. It's not dissimilar from the school shooting narrative pushed in early March that the incident in Florida was the 21st or so example of school shootings this year, when it clearly wasn't once the data was examined, in order to manipulate the viewer. You are being propagandized.

Again, please demonstrate that "these sorts" of incidents are on the rise. The coverage they get is on the rise, with the rush of the left to paint everyone and everything as racist with as broad a brush as possible, and these incidents are useful tools to generate outrage; and the fact that technology turns everyone with a camera on their phone into a beat reporter. That "these incidents are happening more" is an untrue narrative being used to manipulate and divide people by manufacturing outrage. The truth is that we, as a society, are far less racist than in the past and this is a massive problem for individuals who pimp racism as a cottage industry.

Please conclusively demonstrate that "these sorts" (and please precisely define what you mean here) of incidents are on the rise.

That's not entirely true. He complains about chattel slavery in the Antebellum South, but has absolutely no problem with the modern day slave trade operated through our Southern border.

34 seems to have decided to take up the cause as Dr. Sack's champion. Which is fine, I'm happy to hang the question around his neck as well.