Dershowitz

[TitanTiger 20,499]

As I've explained before, whataboutism is when a person responds to an accusation or position by charging that person's side with hypocrisy without actually refuting or disproving their argument.  This is not a term or a definition I coined or made up.  It's a long-understood term and tactic.  

For example:   Bob accused David of making racist statements and perhaps listed a few of them.  In response, David doesn't refute that he made the statements in question or explain why the statements made were misquoted or misunderstood and not racist.  Instead David accuses Bob of misogynist attitudes toward women.  David isn't refuting or disproving the argument or accusation Bob made.  He is simply deflecting attention from it by making new accusations of hypocrisy of his own. 

In this situation, you made a statement and I undermined it by showing you that you don't even follow your own standard.  The logic you're using to dismiss Bee's contentions about the lawyers doesn't hold - you don't even employ it yourself consistently.  That's not Whataboutism.  

Bookmark this post for future reference the next time you're tempted to play the whataboutism card to make sure you understand it first.

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

As I've explained before, whataboutism is when a person responds to an accusation or position by charging that person's side with hypocrisy without actually refuting or disproving their argument.  This is not a term or a definition I coined or made up.  It's a long-understood term and tactic.  

For example:   Person A accused Person B of making racist statements and perhaps listed a few of them.  In response, Person B doesn't refute that they made the statements in question or explain why the statements made were misquoted or misunderstood and not racist.  Instead Person B accuses Person A of misogynist attitudes toward women.  Person B isn't refuting or disproving the argument or accusation.  They are simply deflecting attention from it by making new accusations of hypocrisy of their own. 

In this situation, you made a statement and I undermined it by showing you that you don't even follow your own standard.  The logic you're using to dismiss Bee's contentions about the lawyers doesn't hold - you don't even employ it yourself consistently.  That's not Whataboutism.  

Bookmark this post for future reference the next time you're tempted to play the whataboutism card to make sure you understand it first.

 

 

Bee apologized for her statements and lost sponsorship due to them. Think I'll stand pat sir.  

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Bee apologized for her statements and lost sponsorship due to them. Think I'll stand pat sir.  

If that's true, then THAT would be an actual response.  Shame it took an intellectual browbeating to get you to stumble upon it.

Edited to add:  I see that Bee apologized for her remarks about Ivanka.  She has not retracted nor apologized for the comments we are actually discussing:  the sorry moral state of Trump's lawyers.  So you still don't have an actual response to what she said, you're just shooting the messenger and thinking you've accomplished something.  Kerryon.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

THAT would be an actual response.  Shame it took an intellectual browbeating to get you to stumble upon it

Your attempts to discredit my position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the statement was noted.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

Your attempts to discredit my position by charging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving the statement was noted.

Still not getting it.

Allow me to repeat:  In this situation, you made a statement and I undermined it by showing you that you don't even follow your own standard.  The logic you're using to dismiss Bee's contentions about the lawyers doesn't hold - you don't even employ it yourself consistently.  That's not Whataboutism.  

Please stop using big words you don't understand.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Still not getting it.

Allow me to repeat:  In this situation, you made a statement and I undermined it by showing you that you don't even follow your own standard.  The logic you're using to dismiss Bee's contentions about the lawyers doesn't hold - you don't even employ it yourself consistently.  That's not Whataboutism.  

Please stop using big words you don't understand.

My opinion of Bee stands. Your introduction of hildabeast is without merit. It was a mere attempt to deflect. Didn't work.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

19 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

My opinion of Bee stands. Your introduction of hildabeast is without merit. It was a mere attempt to deflect. Didn't work.

New policy, until you can demonstrate that you have any clue as to what 'whataboutism' is (never mind simply being able to follow the issue we're actually talking about), future accusations of it from you will be removed.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Here was what I said to you that prompted your ill-advised whataboutism comment:

Is "not indicted" enough for you?  Would that line of thought apply to Hillary Clinton then?  Since she wasn't indicted, no one should say mean things about her emails and such anymore, should they?

I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy, I was questioning the logic of "were any of them indicted" as a reason to dismiss the accusations against them.  Then I used Hillary as a counter-example to make the issue more obvious - because of course we don't dismiss the various accusations against her out of hand simply because she wasn't indicted.  Your logic doesn't hold - being indicated isn't the standard we measure such things by.

Again, educate yourself.  

[AUFAN78 3,911]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Here was what I said to you that prompted your ill-advised whataboutism comment:

Is "not indicted" enough for you?  Would that line of thought apply to Hillary Clinton then?  Since she wasn't indicted, no one should say mean things about her emails and such anymore, should they?

I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy, I was questioning the logic of "were any of them indicted" as a reason to dismiss the accusations against them.  Then I used Hillary as a counter-example to make the issue more obvious - because of course we don't dismiss the various accusations against her out of hand simply because she wasn't indicted.  Your logic doesn't hold - being indicated isn't the standard we measure such things by.

Again, educate yourself.  

Whatever 

[TexasTiger 12,963]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I didn't present an argument, but rather a statement.

This thread isn't about the hildabeast. Anyone other than a dolt would know that.

You willing to believe the most unlikely crap in the world as long as guy slinging it is seen as opposed by “the libs.” Stone cold crazy s***. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

As I've explained before, whataboutism is when a person responds to an accusation or position by charging that person's side with hypocrisy without actually refuting or disproving their argument.  This is not a term or a definition I coined or made up.  It's a long-understood term and tactic.  

For example:   Bob accused David of making racist statements and perhaps listed a few of them.  In response, David doesn't refute that he made the statements in question or explain why the statements made were misquoted or misunderstood and not racist.  Instead David accuses Bob of misogynist attitudes toward women.  David isn't refuting or disproving the argument or accusation Bob made.  He is simply deflecting attention from it by making new accusations of hypocrisy of his own. 

In this situation, you made a statement and I undermined it by showing you that you don't even follow your own standard.  The logic you're using to dismiss Bee's contentions about the lawyers doesn't hold - you don't even employ it yourself consistently.  That's not Whataboutism.  

Bookmark this post for future reference the next time you're tempted to play the whataboutism card to make sure you understand it first.

Can the supposedly racist guy get another name?..just sayin...

[AUFAN78 3,911]

27 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You willing to believe the most unlikely crap in the world as long as guy slinging it is seen as opposed by “the libs.” Stone cold crazy s***. 

What Bee stated was an affront to women. She later apologized to all women she offended. So what are you blabbering about?

[TexasTiger 12,963]

43 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

What Bee stated was an affront to women. She later apologized to all women she offended. So what are you blabbering about?

 

I’m talking about the actual thread topic.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

55 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

What Bee stated was an affront to women. She later apologized to all women she offended. So what are you blabbering about?

It's also irrelevant to the things she said about Trump's lawyers and the thread topic.  Please keep up.

[homersapien 11,393]

On 1/23/2020 at 1:57 PM, AUFAN78 said:

That you would even quote a vile woman who called Ivanka Trump a "feckless ****" is telling. What an insult to women. Simply pathetic homes. This vile woman is no patriot. Know that.

That's so typical of you people when  receiving tough, factual informational news. Blame the messenger. 

[homersapien 11,393]

6 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I didn't present an argument, but rather a statement.

This thread isn't about the hildabeast. Anyone other than a dolt would know that.

Brilliant!

[AUFAN78 3,911]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Brilliant!

Indeed it was. 

[Grumps 3,704]

On 1/22/2020 at 1:12 PM, TitanTiger said:

 

Contrary to popular joking about lawyers, it is possible to hire one that is both great in court AND not a pedophile.

I COMPLETELY agree with you. I'm just not sure what that has to do with anything. We already know that Trump is morally deficient. Does your opinion of him go down because his team hired Alan Dershowitz to defend him? I doubt it.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 1/23/2020 at 3:15 PM, TitanTiger said:

New policy, until you can demonstrate that you have any clue as to what 'whataboutism' is (never mind simply being able to follow the issue we're actually talking about), future accusations of it from you will be removed.

Seriously? You are going to use your admin powers to censor sometime who doesn't use your definition of a word... in the political smack forum?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

57 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Seriously? You are going to use your admin powers to censor sometime who doesn't use your definition of a word... in the political smack forum?

Not my definition. THE definition.  If you’re going to use a counter argument to deflect, at least use it right. 

Ever since I introduced most of these folks to that term here, they’ve tried to use it as some sick burn and 98% of the time at least they are failing to understand what it actually is, even after subsequent attempts to explain it further. It gets old and I’m tired of it and yes I’m using my super duper admin powers to end it. 

If anything I’m doing them a favor by keeping them from further embarrassing themselves. 

[alexava 6,973]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/dershowitz-2016-trump-corruption-kfile/index.html

[TexasTiger 12,963]

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

His contention on the Senate floor today is quite scary when you step back and think on it.

The guy argued that the President can essentially do anything he wants as long as he sees it in the national interest.  Moreover, he continued the argument by saying a President could believe that his re-election is inherently in the national interest and thus if he receives political dirt on a rival from another country via quid pro quo, then it's still not a problem.

Folks, that's a direct argument for unilateral executive power.  Basically, according to Dershowitz, as long as any President believes his or her best interests is also the nation's best interests, then all good.  That's some scary ****.  It's a similar argument that Nixon tried to make of "If the President does it, it's not a crime".

[TexasTiger 12,963]

24 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

His contention on the Senate floor today is quite scary when you step back and think on it.

The guy argued that the President can essentially do anything he wants as long as he sees it in the national interest.  Moreover, he continued the argument by saying a President could believe that his re-election is inherently in the national interest and thus if he receives political dirt on a rival from another country via quid pro quo, then it's still not a problem.

Folks, that's a direct argument for unilateral executive power.  Basically, according to Dershowitz, as long as any President believes his or her best interests is also the nation's best interests, then all good.  That's some scary ****.  It's a similar argument that Nixon tried to make of "If the President does it, it's not a crime".

Even 3 years ago all those Senators would have said that was crazy.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Or he can just give them away to Putin.