• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Car plows through protesters during Ferguson rally in south Minneapolis [W:349]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think you know what that word means.

I knew you'd go there. "Irony" has taken on a different meaning in forum speak, just as "ad hom" has. It's a less incendiary euphemism for "hypocrisy".
 
As opposed to just making up a daffynitiont

Judges just love daffynitions. Especially when they come from people who have represented themselves in court.

Don't be jealous... in order to have been in my situation you would have to have a bitch ex-wife like I do. Well, she has BPD so it is not all her fault. I would take not having been in Court those times over just having a normal lovely partner at this point.
 
I knew you'd go there. "Irony" has taken on a different meaning in forum speak, just as "ad hom" has. It's a less incendiary euphemism for "hypocrisy".

I'm just confused about what you think is ironic about the post.
 
We're not talking about what happened to you.

Right. Obvious. We are talking about his, and apparently your, affinity for definitions. I am just trying to make sense of how he uses them. He said that just being collided into constitutes being run over.
 
Right. Obvious. We are talking about his, and apparently your, affinity for definitions. I am just trying to make sense of how he uses them. He said that just being collided into constitutes being run over.

I didn't say that, Merriam-Webster said that.
 
Yes, I typically think the actual definition of the word makes it acceptable to use.

So then you said it. Why did you say that you didn't say it then? WTF? DIZZYING!!
 
I expect to see a trend of mostly left-leaning people saying the driver was wrong and mostly right-leaning people saying he was not wrong.

See, I wait for the facts. I would expect more right-leaning people to agree with me, TBH.
 
So then you said it. Why did you say that you didn't say it then? WTF? DIZZYING!!

So if I quote John Hancock, it makes them my words? Well ****, hold on:

"Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding."
-Albert Einstein

Feels good to be a genius.
 
A thousand thanks would not be enough... and a fact that he keeps ignoring. He kept bringing up political motives upon others when he is the one with the agenda.

Damn conservatives think running people down is OK because they think Wilson is right... blah blah...

No worries, my friend. He's trying to downplay the prominent role that claim had in his argument just as much as he's trying to downplay the actions of the mob (think he'll have any problem with using the word "mob" even though it's absolutely accurate?).
 
No worries, my friend. He's trying to downplay the prominent role that claim had in his argument just as much as he's trying to downplay the actions of the mob (think he'll have any problem with using the word "mob" even though it's absolutely accurate?).

You are just one giant straw man that walks around.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mob
a large number of people

It's the definition of the word. Why would I argue it? I'm not like you guys.
 
You are just one giant straw man that walks around.

What in the world was strawman about that? Oh, I don't deny my propensity to do that but, at least, call me out on a post that actually does it.
 
It stopped after hitting her and didn't run her over.

It stopped after it ran her over.

According to the witness, her leg was caught on something underneath the car.

I wonder how that happens to someone who wasn't run over by the car.
 
What in the world was strawman about that? Oh, I don't deny my propensity to do that but, at least, call me out on a post that actually does it.

You haven't gotten my argument right yet. You keep changing it around to fit whatever world view you have. I'll clear it up for you. I have two main ideas:

1) That driving a car into a group of people because they are in your way is not okay.
2) That this is a simple issue/case, and that partisan politics have divided it.

That's all I've ever said. Oh wait, I forgot one:

3) That the term "run over" can be used in this context as defined by the dictionary.

So please, if you want to refer to my argument, get it right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom