Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president
-
@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:
So, as an "expert", why did you not include the whole thing?
So you don't understand how quoting works? Your critique of my argument is that I did not post a 20+ page SCOTUS decision; therefore, I don't understand the case.
-
What you did was selectively quote the 1 part that supported your agenda, while refusing to talk about the 2nd part because if didn't suit your agenda.
That is lying by omission.
As such an expert in this case, tell me, why did you not mention the equally important 2nd part of the ruling, if you weren't being dishonest? Why did the ACLU (and many others) think the 2nd part was equally important, but you thought it was ok to ignore the 2nd part?
-
Actually, I did admit I was wrong, on that single photograph. Also, you act as if I photoshopped it.
You called me an asshole and liar about that teen porn book being in Florida school libraries. Remember that?
Once I found the name of the elementary school that had it in their library, you ran away from the thread. So, using your rules, you are the asshole and liar since you have yet to admit that teen porn book was available in school libraries from K-12.
-
@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:
You called me an asshole and liar about that teen porn book being in Florida school libraries. Remember that?
Once I found the name of the elementary school that had it in their library, you ran away from the thread. So, using your rules, you are the asshole and liar since you have yet to admit that teen porn book was available in school libraries from K-12.I don't even remember what you're talking about, but if you link to the discussion thread, then I'll try to make a special point of going back and reading your ramblings on the subject. If you've made cogent arguments that were responsive to the arguments I made, then I'll respond there. Frankly, I don't agree with the assertion that any book which discusses sexual events as a "porn book." By that definition, the Bible in the elementary school libraries is also a porn book.
-
I do love your BS.
Go look for it. I believe it was in the Gay News section, maybe General News.
So, if I feel you didn't respond to my comments in a way I don't like, I get to treat you the same way?
Graphic, detailed discussions of teens having sex, is child porn. Imagine what would happen to this site if we had the movie version of that book and it had the exact detailed sex scenes.
-
@raphjd Also, it looks like your method for "winning" arguments in "Gay News" is threatening people with bans when they disagree with you. That seems to be how you "win" arguments here in "Politics and Debate" lately as well. That's sad.
-
NOPE.
It was the tone and language you used, in that forum section.
If you would have used the same language and tone in the Politics/Debate section, it would have been no harm, no foul.
You have a biased view of the 2 recent temp bans, because they are on your side.
The 1st temp ban was due to the person refusing to debate the actual topic and instead kept reposting the same old crap that I should be banned for not being a liberal.
The 2nd temp ban was because the person routinely assumed my position on topics, in many cases he was completely wrong, using that to slag me off even when I had not posted in the topic. His extreme TDS and hatred of anyone who supported Trump is what got him banned.
-
@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:
The 2nd temp ban was because the person routinely assumed my position on topics, in many cases he was completely wrong, using that to slag me off even when I had not posted in the topic. His extreme TDS and hatred of anyone who supported Trump is what got him banned.
You mean like you routinely would pre-emptively put in strawman arguments and attribute them to the temporarily banned person, even before he'd ever even posted in the comment thread. How long are you temporarily banning yourself for that habit?
Didn't even have to try hard to find an example:
"YES, YES, I know our resident troll will be here shortly too screech and bleat some liberal bullshit to justify voter fraud, while losing his mind and exposing his extreme TDS."
The above posted in a thread about voter fraud BEFORE bi4smooth had ever even posted, or even read probably, the thread.
-
He always dismissed EVERY post made about actual, proven voter fraud.
He also accused me of only ever caring about voter fraud because Trump lost, despite my long history here (and everywhere else) of being against voter fraud, even long before Trump ran for office.
He would take a topic that had never been discussed here and assume my stance, and use that to slag me off. At least I based my comments on his proven track record on actual discussions here.
I know, you're a liberal, so you can't see the difference.
-
@raphjd said in Gay Florida student says school stopping him from running for senior class president:
He would take a topic that had never been discussed here and assume my stance, and use that to slag me off. At least I based my comments on his proven track record on actual discussions here.
Pretty sure it was his opinion that he also was basing his comments on your proven track record. That's my assumption anyway. You don't seem capable of admitting you were guilty of the exact same thing he did.
You routinely misinterpret, mis-portray, mischaracterize, etc. the arguments presented by others. And failing that, you routinely rely upon fallacies: ad hominum, guilty by association, hasty generalizations, etc.
You're no better than the temporarily banned individuals.
-
If he was basing his comments on my "proven" track record, then he's just deluded as I have posted anti-voter fraud stuff prior to 2015 when Trump came down the escalator.
Ah, but you are innocent despite calling me an asshole and misrepresenting my stance.
You're no better than anyone else, despite you believing liberals are wonderful and perfect.
-
@raphjd And then in your very next post you rely upon the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Classic, just classic!
