by reader coberly
DANCING AROUND ON ONE NAIL
Here is why we never get anywhere:
Try to ignore the “substance” (such as it is) and follow the logic. It is from a recent thread; names have been omitted in an imperfect attempt to concentrate on the logic and not personalities.
A: You say, “Nationalize Them.”
That is a very slippery slope. Eventually everthing will be nationalized. There is a name for that.
This is exactly what the Democrat Party wants to do, but that’s not what Americans want.
B: contrary to what the voices are telling you, democrats do not want to nationalize everything. or even anything.
A: Oh really!
1.) U.S. Representative Maxine Waters during house hearings on the oil companies stated that she wants the government to “socialize” (what she meant was nationalize like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela) the oil companies. She goes on, after the gaffe, to state she wants the government to take over all the U.S. oil companies.
B: does Maxine Waters speak for the Democrats?
C: She certainly speaks in the U.S. Congress and most certainly for Democrats in her district and elsewhere as evidenced by her many public statements.
B: an example of a members statement does not qualify as a party platform.
try to think of it as a problem in logic.
C: You say things and then act as though you didn’t say them.
You made the bogus claim. Jimi answered the mail with a couple of Congressional facts – specifically, Democratic Members statements. And you continue to post junk.
Jimi nailed you fair and square. And you’re still dancing around.
As I said upthread:
coberly – jimi contrary to what the voices are telling you, democrats do not want to nationalize everything. or even anything.
coberly – Jimi does Maxine Waters speak for the Democrats?
She certainly speaks in the U.S. Congress and most certainly for Democrats in her district and elsewhere as evidenced by her many public statements.
No point in trying to undo what you said when Jimi has already provided an example at the Congressional level of two Members’ statements.
I quote C at length to make it clear that he is insisting upon ridiculing something he apparently cannot understand. Anyone who cares about logic, or language, can go back to the original statement by A, and see that it was a categorical statement about “the Democrat Party.”
B responded, using “democrat” as short for said Democrat Party… pretty clear from the context.
A responds with an example of “a Democrat” as being representative of “the Democrat Party”
B reponds trying to distinguish between “a democrat” and “the Democrat Party”
but C will have none of this. He chimes in with an accusation that B is trying to back away from what he said, because clearly there is NO difference between “a democrat” and “the Democrat Party.” And any effort to maintain the distinction is “dancing around,” “junk,” “trying to undo what you said”.
Apparently in C’s mind there IS no distinction between A member of a class and ALL members of the class, or MOST members, or even MANY members.
This is of course the fallacy that in other circumstances we would call “prejudice” or “racism”. But what it actually appears to be is a simple limitation of some brains that are unable to make an important distinction, and when asked to try to make that distinction they get defensive and hostile.
I wonder if C would accept the logic:
Rep Foley is a Republican
Rep Foley is a pederast
Therefore The Republican Party wants a nation of pederasts.
by reader coberly