Way to invoke Godwins law off the bat. You lose.

Isn't it funny how the ridiculous radical right wants to empower businesses to act as they please, deny service to anyone they choose for any reason including race, sexuality, social status, religion, political affiliation, a hat that isn't red, anything until it denies them service, then suddenly the government should be there in full force to protect their right to demand service at all private businesses.

Enjoy your own medicine, morons. You asked for it.

I hope professional sports leave Florida too now, since Desantos has made it a crime to discriminate based on vaccinations in Florida and plans to make that permanent. If I owned a business, I would already be looking to move out of Florida before I got sued for exposing people to Covid. They deserve all the business losses this idiocy causes them. I hope it reaches $ billions that go to other states.

GRAMMAR NAZI: Aisles. Not isles.

Woohoo! I get to be a jerk AND end the discussion as per Godwin v. like, everyone. 1997

Either you're a complete moron or a troll. If you honestly believe what you wrote then you live in one weird bubble and are honestly racist. You're definition of racism is so far removed from the actual definition it is straight up racist itself.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you are a American or Canadian who lives in that typical America bubble where the world is just your immediate doorstep and things like ethnic cleansing and racial prejudice between Africans, Chinese, etc simply dont exist to you.

I would invite you to sincerely re-examine your beliefs and world-view my brother because you're views are frightening.

PS: I love how it took you only two posts to devolve straight into Godwin's law. That must be a record.

You've already lost this discussion. Admit it to yourself and move on.

Yeah, that's why being anti Jew is called anti semitism. Duh. In the 40's, there weren't many non Semitic jews in Germany....or as far as I know, many non Jewish Semites.

My defense has indisputable fact, codified law, and honest statistics to back it up, Nazis didn't.

No, you insist I said that, but I didn't. Learn to read better without adding in your triggered bias. I insisted I haven't met one that wasn't a liar, many are criminals, and that those who stand in protection of criminals are criminals.
Standing up for the law, not your fellow lawman is all it takes, and some do that...far more need to. Because so few live up to that fairly low standard, they no longer get the benefit of my doubt and have to demonstrate their honesty and civility.

Kind of like you saying it's wrong to assume a heroin junkie will steal from you if you let them stay in your house...Will they all steal, no, should you just say they're certainly thieves, no, do you trust them with your house keys because they might not, Fuck no.

Have a nice day, I'm tired of responding to your misrepresentations....I'll take my Godwin's Law win and leave now.

I agree that a disturbed person with more power is a bigger problem. To go straight for the Godwin's Law example, there have probably been people more evil and messed up than Hitler in the history of Earth, but very few had the power and opportunity to act on that evil to the magnitude he did.

However, you brought up magnitude of problems and compared the two as "equally disturbed". The Republican Congressman (with admittedly more power/influence) "body-slammed" a reporter. The Democrat nutcase shot up 6 people and (I think) didn't manage to kill any of them, but not for lack of trying.

We don't really know what was going on in either persons' heads when they did these things. What led up to them, etc. Maybe the reporter had been doggedly following and questioning/harassing the Congressman to such an extent that he snapped. Happens quite a lot with paparazzi, and we tend to give the celebrity targets a lot of benefit of the doubt in those cases. The only long-term result of the bodyslam incident that I know of is that the reporter's glasses were broken. Glasses can be repaired or replaced. Bullet wounds are rather tougher to fix.

However my main point isn't to get into a dick-measuring contest about who did more harm or who is more fucked up. My point is that the person entirely responsible in either incident is known. GOP Congressman physically assaulted a reporter of his own volition. Democrat nutcase shot up that baseball practice of his own volition. Those individuals are 100% responsible for what they did, no matter who or what they might claim drove them to their actions. Just like it isn't Ozzy Osbourne's fault when some nutter offs themselves after listening to his song "Suicide Solution", or John Carmack's fault for Columbine even though Klebold and Harris liked playing Doom.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

Trump was a protest vote??

Know who else was a protest vote?

Hitler.

Yeah, Godwin and all that. Don't give a fuck. The comparison is factually valid.

Anyway, *doublepromote this, because it is fucking amazing to see how people are already starting to get heartily sick of self-hating liberals wringing their hands about how poor misunderstood idiots voted in Trump.

She didn't call, she sent letters to his employer, the local police and the media. In that letter she referred to him as a Nazi so many times it could be required reading for anyone studying Godwin's Law.

Keller decided to act like a petty vindictive asshole simply because someone had to gall to disagree with her on the internet. The fact that someone else managed to turn her life upside down does not change what she did or somehow make it more excusable.

That being said, I did find the video where thunderf00t doxxed Keller and I also thought he acted like a petty vindictive asshole. And I'm fine with calling them both out on it, rather than trying to draw attention away from one person's wrongdoings by pointing to someone who they believe to be worse.

Sure, the MRA trolls will love some of what thunderf00t has to say about Sarkeesian and other feminists. Liking or agreeing with something someone says however does not mean you buy into their ideology in it's entirety. Donald Trump could tell me the sky is blue, and I might agree, but agreeing to that does not also mean I think we should build a big wall to keep out Mexicans.

As far as what some of his "fans" and or Baphomet did I suspect you'll ignore their individual or group responsibilities in favor of simply blaming it on thunderf00t simply because you want to. Buttered my bread? Based on what I've read so far I can imagine you would know something about bias.

Godwin's Law: 1990-2016.

I was about to go off on a tangent about Godwin's Law, but then I saw/realized what you did there...

I salute you, sir!

The quickest way to get an answer on the internet is not to ask a question, but to deliberately post an incorrect answer.

People are quicker to correct you than to answer an inquiry; it's called Godwin's Law.

Also, it's the GIFT

It's interesting to note the initial class action lawsuit against VW and Audi failed because the lawyer for the plaintiffs mentioned VW's founder in his opening arguments and the judge ruled against him under Godwin's Law.

While the cop is completely and utterly in the wrong, the video goes off at the end on some stupid libertarian nonsense, and then goes full-on godwin.

Interestingly, even the owner of the channel now admits that his language at the end is inflammatory and counter-productive.

None of which justifies his appalling treatment.

Allying yourself with WBC must be the fastest way to hoist yourself right out of the argument since Godwin's Law. Sometimes I wonder if such comments aren't actually left by left-wing shill-martyrs propping themselves up as strawmen.