Author Topic: How can you spot a Trump supporter? (Read 58048 times)

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #220 on:** July 17, 2020, 05:58:18 PM »

Quote from: Dan on July 17, 2020, 03:41:24 PM

Influenza doesn't have asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread.

It's quite clearly referring to such cases...

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #221 on:** July 17, 2020, 05:59:21 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 17, 2020, 03:41:35 PM

So we are not even at our peak? Does that mean another 100k,200k,300k or more will die?

As a country, who knows, but the individual states who locked down back when they had nothing so it wound up being pointless, absolutely.

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #222 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:00:15 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 17, 2020, 03:43:11 PM

So you posted a source you don't trust as reliable? You need to take a break.

As reliable as the rest. Real sources wouldn't satisfy you, so I'm playing your games.

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #223 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:02:20 PM »

Quote from: aygart on July 17, 2020, 03:51:11 PM

Good point! I think you should ask it to the guy over here who brought in panicking.

Agaaiiiiinnnnn. I say panic, you say world destroyed around them.
Not sure if you're not getting its, or purposely repeatedly twisting what I said.

CountValentine · « **Reply #224 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:13:00 PM »

Quote from: davidrotts63 on July 17, 2020, 06:00:15 PM

As reliable as the rest. Real sources wouldn't satisfy you, so I'm playing your games.

When you get called out for your non-sense just own it.
You post a source you don't trust. That explains your posts.

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #225 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:15:41 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 17, 2020, 06:13:00 PM

When you get called out for your non-sense just own it.
You post a source you don't trust. That explains your posts.

This is nonsense. So I should post fox news and then what? Your picking on the wrong part of the argument, fact is before it went to the dumps, your beloved WHO did an independent large study, and concluded its pointless.

CountValentine · « **Reply #226 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:18:29 PM »

Quote from: davidrotts63 on July 17, 2020, 06:15:41 PM

This is nonsense. So I should post fox news and then what? Your picking on the wrong part of the argument, fact is before it went to the dumps, your beloved WHO did an independent large study, and concluded its pointless.

So when they post something you like it is trusted. When they have more info and make a different decision and you don't agree with it they can't be trusted. Take a break as you are looking more foolish than before.

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #227 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:47:25 PM »

Quote from: CountValentine on July 17, 2020, 06:18:29 PM

So when they post something you like it is trusted. When they have more info and make a different decision and you don't agree with it they can't be trusted. Take a break as you are looking more foolish than before.

The decision who looks foolish can only be decided by a third party, so stop with that, somehow you use that arguing tactic every time your side falls to the dumps.

To clarify, again, I don't use them as a source for my info, but, the now political version of them is saying masks are crucial, the fact that before they were politicized and botched up the world, they said with confidence that masks are pointless is quite telling.
Address this, the fact that WHO concluded that masks are pointless. Don't strawman who I trust, how foolish I like, or how big my nose is, talk about what I'm talking about, that's all.

Euclid · « **Reply #228 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:52:46 PM »

Methinks you have no idea what a strawman is. This isn't the first time you've misused the fallacy in this thread.

A strawman isn't when someone argues against your position from an angle which you didn't anticipate.

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #229 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:55:57 PM »

Quote from: Euclid on July 17, 2020, 06:52:46 PM

Methinks you have no idea what a strawman is. This isn't the first time you've misused the fallacy in this thread.

A strawman isn't when someone argues against your position from an angle which you didn't anticipate.

I guess I don't.
I was using Wikipedia's definition:

Quote

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man

Euclid · « **Reply #230 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:56:50 PM »

Quote from: davidrotts63 on July 17, 2020, 06:55:57 PM

I guess I don't.
I was using Wikipedia's definition:

That hasn't happened in this thread.

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #231 on:** July 17, 2020, 06:58:56 PM »

Quote from: Euclid on July 17, 2020, 06:56:50 PM

That hasn't happened in this thread.

Since you don't seem to know what it is I'll explain, when I argue one thing, and you respond something else, or an exaggeration, and something about my character blah blah, that's a strawman.

Euclid · « **Reply #232 on:** July 17, 2020, 07:01:14 PM »

Quote from: davidrotts63 on July 17, 2020, 06:58:56 PM

Since you don't seem to know what it is I'll explain, when I argue one thing, and you respond something else, or an exaggeration, and something about my character blah blah, that's a strawman.

Again, when someone responds with something that you didn't anticipate that doesn't make it a strawman.

No one has exaggerated your position.

The ad hominem fallacy is not a strawman.

davidrotts63 · « **Reply #233 on:** July 17, 2020, 07:08:32 PM »

Quote from: Euclid on July 17, 2020, 07:01:14 PM

Again, when someone responds with something that you didn't anticipate that doesn't make it a strawman.

No one has exaggerated your position.

The ad hominem fallacy is not a strawman.

I'm starting to think this one is another CV alias. The senseless rebuttals are usually a CV exclusive.

CountValentine · « **Reply #234 on:** July 17, 2020, 10:55:54 PM »

Quote from: davidrotts63 on July 17, 2020, 06:47:25 PM

The decision who looks foolish can only be decided by a third party, so stop with that, somehow you use that arguing tactic every time your side falls to the dumps.

To clarify, again, I don't use them as a source for my info, but, the now political version of them is saying masks are crucial, the fact that before they were politicized and botched up the world, they said with confidence that masks are pointless is quite telling.
Address this, the fact that WHO concluded that masks are pointless. Don't strawman who I trust, how foolish I like, or how big my nose is, talk about what I'm talking about, that's all.

Looking foolish was an observation not a rebuttal to your hypocritical position.

Rebuttal:
You want to use the WHO as trust worthy when they agree with you.
You don't want to use the WHO as trust worthy when they disagree with you.
Any reasonable person will see right through this.

After all this you have failed to produce one trusted source for your position.

I guess you missed this extensive list of sources that masks do work?

Quote from: yuneeq on July 17, 2020, 05:52:44 PM

And for the hardcore science-loving anti-maskers, here’s 70 studies on the efficacy of face masks, including 31 studies during COVID.

https://threader.app/thread/1279144399897866248