= new reply since forum marked as read
It's one thing to be thought a fool. It's a whole other matter to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
?signature=UeSMJPRtpI_rxTgmqcHQ81fuZYQ=&source=https:%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com
AOC wields a mean flamethrower. Mosquito will be sitting in a cold bath tonight and wifey will be shopping for a new pair of trousers for him.
Response to NurseJackie (Reply #30)
... serves no good purpose. I expect better. Especially when it comes to the behavior of our elected representatives... regardless of who it is, no matter their party. Our representatives in both houses of Congress need to serve with the dignity that the office demands. They need to show respect to the people that they represent. That's all I'm trying to say. There's nothing at all unreasonable in that.
---------------
PS: Welcome to DU! 
I've been as clear as I can possibly be. The rest is up to the reader to make of it what they will. I cannot be responsible for spoon-feeding my every thought, one syllable at a time.
...have used foul language.
Here's a suggestion - compile a complete list of all of them (don't forget Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, etc.) and we'll do a mass condemnation ceremony.
I'll bring the coffee and donuts.
Here is Nurse Jackie's response to the question once again:
Ted Yoho, who was not part of the conversation until you brought him in (red herring fallacy), is one of our elected representatives. Here's proof:
https://yoho.house.gov/
Seems a simple thing to read what the person you are badgering has posted in response, and understand that repeated, heavy handed demands appear more like trying to bully someone into some kind of imagined 'gotcha,' than discourse, not to mention bringing Ted Yoho into the discussion is a 'Red Herring fallacy"
Repeated demands for a specific response that you are not getting, and implying that not getting that specific response means that the person holds the opposite viewpoint is also an argument from silence logical fallacy.
I would hope that everyone here would be above that sort of thing, especially on a website with a purpose of supporting Democrats.
Pro tip: Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, doesn't give one credibility.
Observe Nurse Jackie's logical, calm, reasoned and responses, and you could learn a thing or two. She has the wherewithal to refuse being baited.
https://effectiviology.com/red-herring/
Attempting to put Nurse Jackie on the defensive by derailing the topic indicates an unfamiliarity with her smarts and deep knowledge of Democrats and our policies.
Repeatedly demanding an answer to that which she has already answered, as if she is opposing you isn't looking for information, is badgering, not an attempt at discourse. She didn't become defensive, and that seems to be why you continued to accuse her of taking a position that she didn't concerning red herring fallacy that you introduced into what was until then, a discussion.
Is that clearer?
it doesn't lend one's arguments credibility.
And repetition does not make something fact, no matter how much you wish it to be true.
Nurse Jackie rose above that, and it's frustrating, I know.
Simple question.
If yes, then this was your answer concerning him and what Nurse Jackie thinks concerning all negative statements made by him.
There you go. Very simple. Why that's so hard to admit is beyond me.
You're welcome.
Good! Now you understand that you got your answer from Nurse Jackie.
Glad that's cleared up!
And no, I'm not going to defend a strawman you set up and attacked.
It's like you keep demanding a recount...
Here is Nurse Jackie's response to the question you repeatedly claim has not been answered:
When one keeps on demanding an answer to a question that has been answered, it ceases to be "simply asking a question," and by inference, becomes an "argument from silence fallacy."
Badgering someone for an answer they've clearly given in an attempt to make them look like they are being evasive is neither subtle nor effective, especially that person calmly rises above it, and others point it out. It's still not wearing anyone down or putting anyone on the defensive, and is clearly becoming frustrating for only one poster here.
indicates that an actual answer isn't what you're seeking.
This is the answer, and it's clear. It's not submission to a demand for a specific response that oversimplifies, and might be incorrect in that oversimplification, however, so that's frustrating for the one doing the demanding.
Ted Yoho is an elected representative. The statement above addresses all representatives.
Your continued demand for a one word answer ignores that Nurse Jackie has answered, so the argument from repetition fallacy is yours. She is rising above it, and it's clear that you are upset about that.
Let's say someone was to say that they like dogs, and someone who didn't like their choice of a Labrador Retriever as a pet replied, "BUT DO YOU LIKE CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS??" and claiming that the statment "I like dogs" deliberately leaves out particular breeds such as the cavalier spaniel, and means the person did not like cavalier spaniels And if the person who said, "I like dogs" said, "I have answered the question," and didn't engage with continued demands for the endorsement of the cavalier spaniel, would you expect people to defend the person doing the demanding? Or the person who just didn't take the bait?
If I was to say that "I like dogs," in a discussion and someone who didn't like me, or Tibetan Terriers, demanded, "Do you like Pit Bulls? YES OR NO??" I would likely smile and say "I said I like dogs."
If that person then continued to demand that I submit and answer "a simple yes or no" concerning Pit Bulls try to bait me into some kind of embarassing statement, then tried to imply that refusing to do so was either showing dislike of pitbulls or was defending people who hated pit bulls, I would be the adult in the room, not take the bait, and let the person doing the demanding continue to embarass themselves. And I would, in all honesty, take some satisfaction in watching their futile attempts to gain control of the disscussion.
If the person doesn't have the wherewithal to stop trying to pick a fight, then they will be frustrated by someone who doesn't take the bait, no matter how hard someone tries to imply falsely that not taking the bait means that they hold a suspicious predjudice or opinon.
And no one listening will be convinced of that implication, whatever feelings I have about Pit Bulls, because everyone else would quickly figure out it's less about Pit Bulls than it is about frantically trying to discredit me about something dog related.
BTW - I have fostered Pit Bulls, and love them, but I would not dignify that person's silly attempt to hijack a discussion or pick a fight because of their feelings about Tibetan Terriers.
I like dogs.
Especially the part about my story about refusing to answer a yes or no question about liking Pit Bulls, even though I do, because the person doing the demanding wasn't really interested in Pit Bulls as much than they were in trying to control the discussion and pick a fight.
That's one explanation why someone wouldn't give a "simple answer" when ordered to.
You don't seem to want to accept that your question has been answered if you still feel frustrated.
Carry on.
Then there's really no common ground on which to explain this to you.
Simple question, yes?
If yes, then this was your answer concerning him and what Nurse Jackie thinks concerning all negative statements made by him.
There you go.
You're welcome.
you clearly aren't going to get, and refuse to acknowledge that you have gotten an answer.
Simple question.
If yes, then this was your answer concerning him and what Nurse Jackie thinks concerning all negative statements made by him.
There you go.
You're welcome.
When it's Melman's post?
Simple question...
I find it interesting that you were thanking someone for the kick for melman's thread, and you won't give the type of specific, direct answer that you seem to feel owed by others.
That is your choice.
Tag you're it.
Demand all the recounts you want, the result is unchanged.
But whatever. Your refual to admit that Nurse Jackie answered your post, as more than one person here has pointed out, is expected and quite boring at this point.
Sound familiar?
Good to know you've finally accepted the facts and are moving on.
Not surprised, tho.
Still waiting on that "direct answer" for why you said 'thanks for the kick' on Melman's OP.
Nice try, tho.
is an elected representative, that's your issue.
You are unhappy at being called out on your logical fallacies, and that's understandable.
Doubling down and trying to get people on the defensive isn't working, despite all the effort.
How's that turned out for you?
Still haven't gotten anyone on the defensive, or to agree with you that you didn't get a straight answer.
BTW... the OP is by Melman.
What did you mean when you thanked me for "the kick?"
When all members are included in a Set, and a comment is said about that entire Set, that the comment is made about EVERY member of that set.
I renew my offer of conducting a mass condemnation of all members of the House and Senate in history, and I will still provide the coffee and donuts.
So simple.
But, just to be clear... I really don't care if our elected representatives use vulgar language in private conversations between themselves; behind closed doors; at home; while driving or watching TV; etc. Sure, everyone needs to vent... and that can be done privately. I do believe that it has no place in their public roles or in their official capacity. Mature adults should be able to tell the difference, and keep their emotions under control.
All I'm saying (and all I've been saying consistently) is that it serves no good purpose for ANY elected official, no matter which party, no matter how popular he (or she) may be to behave in a manner that's unbecoming to the dignity of the office they hold, and the institution itself, and the citizens that they represent. I think that's a reasonable position for me to take.
The result is spectacular.
Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2020, 07:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Either/or thinking: "If you don't say that you agree with me completely, and submit to my demands for deference, then you oppose everything I believe."
Someone demanding that someone else ANSWER them over and over again when someone has made their point is rather abusive, and embarassing only to the person doing the demanding.
A calm response should elicit a calm reaction, shouldn't it?
My bad 
