Always remember the legal defense used here https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

"Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."


(they lost the case and were forced to pay Rachel Maddow)
*quality *doublepromote

That requires him to think for himself, something he's proven time and time again he's incapable of or not interested in doing.
If he's not fed the answer in the form of something he can cut and paste, it's guaranteed he's going to switch topics or just go silent.
He would be far more persuasive if that were not the case.

No one is dismissing 75 million Americans, it is the Trump cult that's dismissing the 80+ millions' collective voice/vote by not understanding basic math, being delusional and can't handle losing an election. Snowflakes.

Ah... America. To be a Patriot is to never own up to its mistakes/actions, am I right, Bob? Just point to some Bogeymen and blame them! Besides, if the Trump cult is so cool-headed and oh so "Jenius!", why would they fall into Antifa's "incitement" ALL. THE. F-ING. TIME? Guest them Trump nuts never had much mental faculty to resist any violent persuasions to begin with huh?

Oh, please ID me ONE Antifa in the footage. If there are seditious Antifa in their midst, arrest them! It's what they deserve.

MAGA nuts have been going off all on their own without anyone's help.

With a bit of persuasion anything is possible

And the attacks are inexcusable.

To be totally upfront though, Gretta's role is meant to be emotional as opposed to scientific or factual. She's not meant to fill the gap of proving or providing facts, but rather to appeal on emotional level to get people to listen who maybe wouldn't other wise listen.

The criticism that such an angle is apart from 'science' isn't entirely invalid in her case. Right or wrong facts, using emotion to appeal to people and change their minds is entirely a non scientific approach to argument/persuasion.

I believe your typical American, no matter their political persuasion, cares about his fellow American. I'm sure you agree that trying to paint either side as demons who don't care is nonsense.

People shouldn't care about what type of guns or the number of guns - there seems to be no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).sv
g

(the line of best fit would have a positive slope if there was a correlation)

There is a correlation between weapon type and firearm murder - pistols (of all sorts) account for approximately 89% of all firearm murders (where a firearm type is specified in the police report). Rifles (of all sorts) are about 5%. Shotguns (of all sorts) are about 3%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

This wiki has better data than you presented - you can isolate gun violence from other violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

"Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?"

The data says that Republican voters (or those that lean that way) have a firearm ownership rate of double that of Democrats.

If the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are by right wing terrorists as you suggest, then it seems odd you'd say in the same breath that the left are ready for violent political civil war. If they have less arms and less willingness to engage in violence (which I actually believe is a good thing) then they are hardly "99% more ready and better armed".

The military voted Republican at about twice the rate of voting Democrat at the last election. So the left doesn't have that going for them either.

Us men seem to be way more insecure than I previously imagined.

I get the Action Movies where a young, fit, trained specialist takes out an army of bad guys (against all odds) because he is the hero..

Young men like to watch this, because they have to much Testosterone.

I partly get the Action Movies where a middle aged man of a srtictly civilian persuasion is "pushed too far"(tm), normally by bad guys abducting (or just threatening) his family, and wipes out the bady guys (usually career criminals with lots of training in killing people) by the dozen.

Middle aged men seem to need this to get through the day.

What I really don't get is this slew of movies over the last years, where a retired, old and tired looking man, (usually after his daughter gets kidnapped) decides to come out of retirement one last time (or multiple times) to kill hordes of young, highly trained bad guys.

I get it why some men like to watch this, Testosterone makes you stupid like that, no matter if it comes in syringes, but the rest?

Lol. Bait you?! Bwaaahahahaha.
Nope.
I was hoping you would have a tiny bit of consistency and admit to yourself that any diet that includes (according to you) 350g of red meat a week (with no limit on white meat) must, by definition, not be vegan or vegetarian, and admitting that, that you might have stopped pretending they're related.
Glad I checked, because as feared you did not display that kind of consistency.
Apparently you think that's an invitation to argue that a meat inclusive "plant based diet" IS vegan instead of just agreeing with the obvious. I expect you'll continue to pretend the health benefits of plant based diets translate to health benefits of being vegan, knowing full well they aren't related at all. Hmmmm.

You're more than welcome, but I think your vote totals say a lot about how persuasive your arguments are with or without me contradicting you.

I am curious where this idea that a group's social/economic status dictates their ability to be racist comes from. That's simply not part of any actual definition of the term.
I have found an online movement to change the meaning to your interpretation, but I don't see any logic to it.

Put simply, every actual definition I can find (i checked >5) says it's thinking a person can/cannot do (X) because they are (race).

Assuming a kid can swim because they're white is racism "against whites" exactly like assuming a black child can't swim is racism "against blacks".
I'm open to argument about that, but 'that's not what I think it means' lacks evidence and therefore lacks persuasion.

I think you may be confusing/conflating racism with institutional racism....the latter fits your definition much more closely.

The corrupting power of money in politics seems to be a bipartisan issue. Why do you think there's a lack of unity and action from people of both left and right wing persuasions to push politicians to act?

this MIGHT be persuasive for a 4 year old with a learning disability.

This kind of thing (pointing out hypocrisy) is by far the most persuasive way to get me to reconsider my views on political issues. Both (all) sides are guilty of it, but holy hell has the GOP been kicking it into overdrive with Agent Orange in charge.

Funny and important, instant upvote.

Since you agree that they're trying to influence the debate, is there any aspect of let's call it 'global warming scepticism' that you think is basically a lie perpetuated by the industry to make their argument more persuasive?

It's pretty easy for say, a fossil fuel company to pay (what is pocket change to to them) a PR company quietly to spread ideas that are misleading but sound convincing right?

Also where did Inconvenient Truth say the planet would be basically dead? I don't recall that at all.

Can't argue that. I've been in California so long that the idea of smoking inside a business didn't even occur to me. The 'in private homes with children and apartments or townhouses' part I find draconian and unenforceable...and we have them here.
On a side note, I also find it distasteful that cigars get lumped in with cigarettes. As far as I know, there have been few if any studies on second hand cigar smoke, which has none of the toxic additives most cigarettes have so produce a different smoke. I'm not saying it's good for you, just that it hasn't been proven to be the same kind of toxicity....yet they are now taxed the same here, doubling the price overnight. (If you can't tell, I'm bitter, I can't afford them now)

True, cars have far more utility (except to tobacco farmers) but are also far more damaging in many ways. It's not meant to be a logical argument, it's more about getting people to see that they also pollute the air (a normal complaint I hear about smokers) in a directly more deadly and indirectly disastrous way, and I hope they will consider that before angrily deriding someone for a cigarette. It's a disguised 'people in glass houses' argument.

Sadly, yes, smoking is an easy target today....alcohol could be tomorrow, or marijuana again (just became legal here)....I don't like our governments going after the easy targets heavy handedly just because they can. It's too easy to portray something or someone as an easy target and go after it solely because a small persuasive group finds it distasteful.

To play devils advocate, there are a few positive sides to smoking...smoking tastes good (to smokers), it acts as a stimulant/depressant and appetite suppressor, it supports an industry of farmers and for cigars, hand rollers, and it helps thin out the herd. ;-)