Comment by albedoa
15 hours ago
> So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying
On the contrary, everyone is engaging timr within the scope of the exact challenge that he himself designed. Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
> Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.
> The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.
You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48253510
> You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
No, that is literally not what the comment said. I'm actually sort of amazed that you can get that from what I wrote, and treat is as some kind of "gotcha", when it's the top of this thread, and literally the same message I've been repeating throughout:
> Or maybe, when you say that the platform is “built upon hatred”, that’s just your opinion, and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric, then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric, is everything that is wrong with political debate in the US right now.
To wit: stop calling people liars. Make an argument instead.
3 replies →