airclay said:

the concept (true or not) you're presenting (No one has the right to attack me,) has nothing to do whether it's a straw man or not the way you presented (regardless of what liberals think...) by stating that liberals here or elsewhere were condoning an attack on anyone else is what makes it a straw man

---

hostileuniverse said:

Is it strawmanning if it's true?

***homest question, please edukate me, I is dum...

---

Enlil said:

Yes, it's still a strawman argument.  You're attributing to someone a position they never argued.  That is a strawman argument.

---

hostileuniverse said:

I'd rather be hated for what I am than loved for what I am not

So you're saying, for example, that if someone is for sanctuary cities, that doesn't mean they support the crime that results from that policy?

---

Enlil said:

Correct.

---

MIND FUCKING BLOWN!

So you're saying that basically everything these libs accuse conservatives of doing is a fucking strawman! And here I though they were just being assholes

I guess I'm gonna need to save that pic, gonna be using it A LOT!

hostileuniverse said:

MIND FUCKING BLOWN!

So you're saying that basically everything these libs accuse conservatives of doing is a fucking strawman! And here I though they were just being assholes

---

I can't wait for an example of what you're talking about. 

airclay said:

There's a vast difference in being an Official in a position of power and being a loud mouth reactionary in a moment set aside for you to express your rage. There's also a pretty big difference in suspending someone for damaging speech to an organization and charging some one with a crime over speech in an excersize of free speech.

---

Quote:

His post stated: “Run them over. Keep traffic flowing and don’t slow down for any of these idiots who try and block the street.” Rothecker then explains to drivers how to avoid being charged for striking a demonstrator.

---

Quote:

At Friday’s news conference, Trahern Crews said Rothecker’s comments go beyond being hateful. It constitutes a crime under the state’s terroristic threats statute, he stated.

“His admission, although not heartfelt ... is an admission of guilt, and we expect (the) city attorney ... to proceed with criminal charges. ... It’s ridiculous to think that this guy is on paid administrative leave after admitting to terroristic threats,” Crews said.

---

hostileuniverse said:

hostileuniverse said:

I'd rather be hated for what I am than loved for what I am not

So you're saying, for example, that if someone is for sanctuary cities, that doesn't mean they support the crime that results from that policy?

---

Enlil said:

Correct.

---

MIND FUCKING BLOWN!

So you're saying that basically everything these libs accuse conservatives of doing is a fucking strawman! And here I though they were just being assholes

I guess I'm gonna need to save that pic, gonna be using it A LOT!

---

airclay said:

but they do annotate whether that person is in a position of official state power. You're also forgetting that it's being labelled as a terroristic threat.

You've really downplayed sherriff's whole actions

Quote:

His post stated: “Run them over. Keep traffic flowing and don’t slow down for any of these idiots who try and block the street.” Rothecker then explains to drivers how to avoid being charged for striking a demonstrator.

---

Quote:

At Friday’s news conference, Trahern Crews said Rothecker’s comments go beyond being hateful. It constitutes a crime under the state’s terroristic threats statute, he stated.

“His admission, although not heartfelt ... is an admission of guilt, and we expect (the) city attorney ... to proceed with criminal charges. ... It’s ridiculous to think that this guy is on paid administrative leave after admitting to terroristic threats,” Crews said.

---

you're being really childish and overtly naive about the situation entirely. really this is your best effort qman? An obviously unequal tit for tat that seeks to make speech by citizens in everyday life a crime?

---