default

You’re like a gnat at a barbecue.

You invent strawman arguments to disprove and did it again TWICE in this post. You are correct that whataboutisim is a logical fallacy could involve not answering a question. But justifying someone else not being able to answer a question is not whataboutisim.

I love when someone thinks they're arguing intelligently but can only "prove" arguments using unproveable subjective claims, and can only "disprove" arguments using logical fallacies.

Those are both subjective claims. Since there are no generally accepted standards or methods that would prove a subjective claim conclusively true or false, this means, even though the claims may involve facts, they are not provable. Your argument ("the losses are on him") is supported by subjective (non provable) claims and therefore cannot be proven as true.

How can it be fair that absolute, exactly to the tee, concrete examples are required to prove the argument, but it can be disproved by a subjective interpretation of watching a 4-game Cleveland series?

Hey that’s demeaning to people who are 4 years old.

Here comes the cancel

Isn’t the difference between the two scenarios “foreseeable risk” on the part of the victim? At least in terms of civil litigation.

Fear-based motivation is LAZY and psychologically damaging.

Powerful and effective in accomplishing what?? There’s plenty of evidence that shows shaming as an incredibly poor long-term strategy. It’s also an incredibly lazy strategy.

There is no difference. This is your interpretation of my actions based on your own narratives. You’ve decided you don’t like me and whatever you do from here on out will be filtered though that lens. I can see you pride yourself on calling other people’s bullshit. I’m not much different. But because of that, I’m not allowed to spread a positive message?? Ok.

Hmmmm... he could I suppose. But that wouldn’t fit into their narratives very nicely. I banter with ss2k5 yesterday then Quinny enters and says enough so we both stop. I make one post today giving props to a dude who made a fantastic post. Minutes later, Tony comes in and derails the thread again with a bunch shaming by pointing how how hypocritical I am. Yeah, those guys are the model of integrity... no hypocrisy there. The irony is that the first post of mine that he quoted was my response to a couple moderators of this message board heckling a certain poster. But context doesn’t matter..

Oh Tony! I do own those statements. And I can absolutely understand why you would spend all that valuable time of yours finding them to accomplish nothing more than making someone on the internet look like a hypocrite. I get it man. Even though I don’t necessarily agree with it. Internet-message-board-moderator-brothers FOR LIFE, right? Oh BTW— How’s your glass house lookin’ Tony? Photos please.

Fantastic post. Empathy is exclusive of agreement. You can choose both empathy and disagreement at the same time. Some people just don’t get it. You absolutely get it man. Hats off to you.

Yeah the lack of transparency is frustrating. And when Trump is actually willing to answer a question, it’s laced with hyperbolic nonsense.