minnow

The three paragraphs regarding the topic that I explicitly stated that I wasn't engaging with you about?

The focus on the addendum that you didn't have to include but did anyway?

You don't seem to understand that everything you say in an argument is part of the argument. You done fucked up by letting your emotions get the best of you, and if you think that doesn't impact your chances of successfully convincing another person about something, you're just fooling yourself. Humans are emotional creatures, and whether you're right is, at most, the same importance as maintaining the other person's willingness to accept that you're right. Yeah, that's fucked up, emotions should have nothing to do with whether something is correct or incorrect. If you're right, you're right... Right?

Case in point: you know I'm right, but you're pissed off at me and don't want to admit it (but maybe you will, now that I've called you out on it, just to spite me)

why are you so Hell-bent on promoting tyranny, anyway?

Begging the question, asssumes the conclusion that the other person is intent on promoting tyranny.

Why do you apparently so love the idea of The People not being able to defend themselves against The State?

Strawman, misrepresents the other person's argument.

Why are you carrying water for the fascists by dogmatically pushing your sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law?

Red herring, attempts to change the subject under debate from interpretation of the 2A to if the other person is supporting fascists.

And the whole paragraph is a kind of ad hominem/appeal to emotion.

Hey, I'm not here to say if you're right or wrong about your interpretation of the 2A. I'm just here to tell you you're being a fallacious asshole.

Good luck convincing anyone of anything 😏

If this argument succeeds, I would love to see the same logic applied to the second amendment (specifically the word "arms") just for shits and giggles.

But don't get me wrong, I know that logical consistency doesn't apply to the second amendment. It would just be fun to see someone try.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius (misattributed)

A good person would reward good people for being good. If Jesus won't reward a good person for being good just because they haven't "accepted him into their heart" well... I said what I said.

Just another "Conservatives FAFO"

You don't get to support marginalizing other groups in other states and then complain when your group gets marginalized in your state. They opened this particular Pandora's box and it's too late to close it.

The acronym was never about sexuality, it was about gender non-conformity. By the same notion, that's what people's attitudes are being measured about: specific forms and sub-groups of gender non-conformity.

Right, and therein lays the rub: it's open to interpretation, and things will get interpreted differently by different people in different places and times.

Most medieval Christians believed that transgender people (not how they would have been labeled at that time, but they frequently didn't have a specific word for such people, so we'll make do) were created by God as the gender they identify as BUT were changed by the devil to the opposite gender in the womb. Gender transition was therefore putting things back they way that God intended and was fighting against the devil.

Anti trans Christians today believe it's the other way around.

And this is why evidence based policy making is so important for a successful government.

Can't lose something you never had.

These people were always fascists, they just didn't know it or knew to hide it.

The heart attack thing is probably untrue, but it doesn't need to be true to justify ending three DST nonsense.

https://medschool.duke.edu/news/daylight-saving-time-may-not-trigger-heart-attacks-after-all-study-finds

The people responsible for the firing weren't punished at all. Florida tax payers were. In a functional democracy this would lead to the people responsible for the firing to be held accountable, but... well....

It's worth noting that "blue no matter who" is just a bandaid, just a drive to get fascists out of power long enough to enact voting reform. The two party system is an organic result of First Past The Post voting; we have to move to some form of Rank Choice if we're ever to see any progress. Thankfully voting regulations are on the local level, where change is still possible. This is one of the many reasons Trump is trying to federalize elections.

Until we get voting reform, there will only be Two Parties, and they will always drift to the right.

Right? Headline should really read "Trump admits Epstein list is real, defends some of the people on it."