Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
Could've sworn you wanted to drop the subject...oh well.
I was SPECIFICALLY talking about a guy in a position of power, making decisions to make people's lives worse to the point of death, all in the name of profit. You said it was ironic I was saying this, that I was a hypocrite, and shouldn't be condescending towards the CEO because I invest in a tobacco stock. Your reason? Both involve blood money and both industries kill.
1) the stock I have focuses on reducing the health risks of tobacco and creating smoking-free zones aka benefiting people all around, so your blood money talk falls apart from the very beginning.
2) You keep comparing apples to oranges. Your logic suggests that anyone who invests or works in those industries is complicit in deaths, seeing how I'm apparently hypocritical for talking down a guy directly causing deaths by refusing them care.
The fact is that nothing I said was hypocritical. No rants about leftists and people's homelands, ignoring in your face posts, or how much you hate drugs doesn't change that.
I was SPECIFICALLY talking about a guy in a position of power, making decisions to make people's lives worse to the point of death, all in the name of profit. You said it was ironic I was saying this, that I was a hypocrite, and shouldn't be condescending towards the CEO because I invest in a tobacco stock. Your reason? Both involve blood money and both industries kill.
1) the stock I have focuses on reducing the health risks of tobacco and creating smoking-free zones aka benefiting people all around, so your blood money talk falls apart from the very beginning.
2) You keep comparing apples to oranges. Your logic suggests that anyone who invests or works in those industries is complicit in deaths, seeing how I'm apparently hypocritical for talking down a guy directly causing deaths by refusing them care.
The fact is that nothing I said was hypocritical. No rants about leftists and people's homelands, ignoring in your face posts, or how much you hate drugs doesn't change that.
Oh boyyy, here we go again....
Oh yeah, the "healthy tobacco" marketing trick all over again. That is a huuuuuuuge amount of copium right here. If believing that makes you sleep better at night, its up to you. There is no such thing as safe tobacco. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.
You second point is a fallacy, i never implied that ANYONE who works with those is dealing with blood money. I said that INVESTORS aren't innocent, even though they are not as obviously as involved as CEO, since one is directly involved and the other is indirectly involved. You are the one stretching and making leaps in logic to imply i said workers(janitors=ceo lmfaoooo) are included in this too and therefore guilty like CEO and Investors.
This is called the fallacy of "moral equivalence", and no i never made such statement, your projected that into my vague comments. I made a long ass post explaining this and even posted the quotes here where the whole "false equivalence" fallacy started being pointed at me. You reading too much into a vague comment and started assuming shit i never said.
The whole thing boils down to me believing that investors are morally responsible for the harm their industries cause because they expand said industries by financing it. You believe otherwise. You think indirect involvement makes one free of guilt, therefore investing into tobacco is perfectly acceptable by your standards. We will agree to disagree on that.
I asked for the subject to be dropped, because this is subjective to a certain degree and we are clearly not convincing each other. So this entire back and forth is a waste of time. Again, i would appreciate, if you drop the subject.
If you are not willing to do so, at least admit you put words in my mouth. First, you said that i claimed you were a murderer like the CEO. Which i never did and challenged you to quote the post where i did it.
Then, you said my logic implied workers are into it too, which is bullshit. I was very clearly talking about investors. Now you are moving goal posts and ranting about things (people's homeland's blah blah) that weren't even addressed to you. You did this before with the "red scare propaganda" and "capitalism implies exploitation" comments.
These are just bullshit red herrings/straw man and the goals are: To dismiss my arguments. Make it seem like tobacco is a fair, clean and honest way to make money(safe/environment friendly tobacoo rofl). Gaslight me by repeating over and over again that i meant things that are not written anywhere in my posts. Finally, claim i have no grounds to call you a hypocrite and make me apologize to an unfair insult. If you are expecting an apology, you better take a seat and wait. It might take a long while to happen...
Oh yeah, the "healthy tobacco" marketing trick all over again. That is a huuuuuuuge amount of copium right here. If believing that makes you sleep better at night, its up to you. There is no such thing as safe tobacco. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.
You second point is a fallacy, i never implied that ANYONE who works with those is dealing with blood money. I said that INVESTORS aren't innocent, even though they are not as obviously as involved as CEO, since one is directly involved and the other is indirectly involved. You are the one stretching and making leaps in logic to imply i said workers(janitors=ceo lmfaoooo) are included in this too and therefore guilty like CEO and Investors.
This is called the fallacy of "moral equivalence", and no i never made such statement, your projected that into my vague comments. I made a long ass post explaining this and even posted the quotes here where the whole "false equivalence" fallacy started being pointed at me. You reading too much into a vague comment and started assuming shit i never said.
The whole thing boils down to me believing that investors are morally responsible for the harm their industries cause because they expand said industries by financing it. You believe otherwise. You think indirect involvement makes one free of guilt, therefore investing into tobacco is perfectly acceptable by your standards. We will agree to disagree on that.
I asked for the subject to be dropped, because this is subjective to a certain degree and we are clearly not convincing each other. So this entire back and forth is a waste of time. Again, i would appreciate, if you drop the subject.
If you are not willing to do so, at least admit you put words in my mouth. First, you said that i claimed you were a murderer like the CEO. Which i never did and challenged you to quote the post where i did it.
Then, you said my logic implied workers are into it too, which is bullshit. I was very clearly talking about investors. Now you are moving goal posts and ranting about things (people's homeland's blah blah) that weren't even addressed to you. You did this before with the "red scare propaganda" and "capitalism implies exploitation" comments.
These are just bullshit red herrings/straw man and the goals are: To dismiss my arguments. Make it seem like tobacco is a fair, clean and honest way to make money(safe/environment friendly tobacoo rofl). Gaslight me by repeating over and over again that i meant things that are not written anywhere in my posts. Finally, claim i have no grounds to call you a hypocrite and make me apologize to an unfair insult. If you are expecting an apology, you better take a seat and wait. It might take a long while to happen...
Last edited:
Oh boyyy, here we go again....
Oh yeah, the "healthy tobacco" marketing trick all over again. That is a huuuuuuuge amount of copium right here. If believing that makes you sleep better at night, its up to you. There is no such thing as safe tobacco. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.
You second point is a fallacy, i never implied that ANYONE who works with those is dealing with blood money. I said that INVESTORS aren't innocent, even though they are not as obviously as involved as CEO, since one is directly involved and the other is indirectly involved. You are the one stretching and making leaps in logic to imply i said workers(janitors=ceo lmfaoooo) are included in this too and therefore guilty like CEO and Investors.
This is called the fallacy of "moral equivalence", and no i never made such statement, your projected that into my vague comments. I made a long ass post explaining this and even posted the quotes here where the whole "false equivalence" fallacy started being pointed at me. You reading too much into a vague comment and started assuming shit i never said.
The whole thing boils down to me believing that investors are morally responsible for the harm their industries cause because they expand said industries by financing it. You believe otherwise. You think indirect involvement makes one free of guilt, therefore investing into tobacco is perfectly acceptable by your standards. We will agree to disagree on that.
I asked for the subject to be dropped, because this is subjective to a certain degree and we are clearly not convincing each other. So this entire back and forth is a waste of time. Again, i would appreciate, if you drop the subject.
If you are not willing to do so, at least admit you put words in my mouth. First, you said that i claimed you were a murderer like the CEO. Which i never did and challenged you to quote the post where i did it.
Then, you said my logic implied workers are into it too, which is bullshit. I was very clearly talking about investors. Now you are moving goal posts and ranting about things (people's homeland's blah blah) that weren't even addressed to you. You did this before with the "red scare propaganda" and "capitalism implies exploitation" comments.
These are just bullshit red herrings/straw man and the goals are: To dismiss my arguments. Make it seem like tobacco is a fair, clean and honest way to make money(safe/environment friendly tobacoo rofl). Gaslight me by repeating over and over again that i meant things that are not written anywhere in my posts. Finally, claim i have no grounds to call you a hypocrite and make me apologize to an unfair insult. If you are expecting an apology, you better take a seat and wait. It might take a long while to happen...
Oh yeah, the "healthy tobacco" marketing trick all over again. That is a huuuuuuuge amount of copium right here. If believing that makes you sleep better at night, its up to you. There is no such thing as safe tobacco. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.
You second point is a fallacy, i never implied that ANYONE who works with those is dealing with blood money. I said that INVESTORS aren't innocent, even though they are not as obviously as involved as CEO, since one is directly involved and the other is indirectly involved. You are the one stretching and making leaps in logic to imply i said workers(janitors=ceo lmfaoooo) are included in this too and therefore guilty like CEO and Investors.
This is called the fallacy of "moral equivalence", and no i never made such statement, your projected that into my vague comments. I made a long ass post explaining this and even posted the quotes here where the whole "false equivalence" fallacy started being pointed at me. You reading too much into a vague comment and started assuming shit i never said.
The whole thing boils down to me believing that investors are morally responsible for the harm their industries cause because they expand said industries by financing it. You believe otherwise. You think indirect involvement makes one free of guilt, therefore investing into tobacco is perfectly acceptable by your standards. We will agree to disagree on that.
I asked for the subject to be dropped, because this is subjective to a certain degree and we are clearly not convincing each other. So this entire back and forth is a waste of time. Again, i would appreciate, if you drop the subject.
If you are not willing to do so, at least admit you put words in my mouth. First, you said that i claimed you were a murderer like the CEO. Which i never did and challenged you to quote the post where i did it.
Then, you said my logic implied workers are into it too, which is bullshit. I was very clearly talking about investors. Now you are moving goal posts and ranting about things (people's homeland's blah blah) that weren't even addressed to you. You did this before with the "red scare propaganda" and "capitalism implies exploitation" comments.
These are just bullshit red herrings/straw man and the goals are: To dismiss my arguments. Make it seem like tobacco is a fair, clean and honest way to make money(safe/environment friendly tobacoo rofl). Gaslight me by repeating over and over again that i meant things that are not written anywhere in my posts. Finally, claim i have no grounds to call you a hypocrite and make me apologize to an unfair insult. If you are expecting an apology, you better take a seat and wait. It might take a long while to happen...
- you believe tobacco can be fair, healthy and honest
- you want an apology.
- you think indirect involvement is free of guilt
There's got to be a limit to how much one can assume to justify using logic that says anyone in those industries are complicit in death. You putting words in my mouth when you complian about it happening to you? I'll keep repeating the obvious. You also have no idea what implications are, and keep using strawman wrong by definition. Also displaying a lack of understanding of what the word hypocrite means.
Once again, I can take any condescending tone against someone who denies people healtcare and let's them die. By calling me a hypocrite(someone who's actions contradict their beliefs or pretends to have qualities they don't have since you clearly don't know what the word means), for saying this, simple language says that I bear some similarities to the guy that I'm denouncing in action. Last time I checked, I'm in no postion of power denying people living saving care. It's take so much generalization to force your logic to work. You forced in your own standards and beliefs to make that claim.
It was never about morality, but you not knowing what you're talking about. The lack of understanding of something as basic as capitalist exploitation is evident of it.
You replied to this at around 5am. I will assume you were still sleepy and didn't read properly. Re-read my post, because i said the opposite of what you are claiming. With reading comprehension like this i see why you didn't understand my long ass explanation and why you keep putting words in my mouth.
I do know what an implication is and i already proved my first comments were too vague for you to come to such conclusions. Then I explained what my points actually were. I did explain why i think it was hypocrisy( both are blood money in my book). You don't agree and it's perfectly fine. You do what you will.
I do know what an implication is and i already proved my first comments were too vague for you to come to such conclusions. Then I explained what my points actually were. I did explain why i think it was hypocrisy( both are blood money in my book). You don't agree and it's perfectly fine. You do what you will.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...electronic-tag-after-corruption-ruling-france
French thug Nicolas Sarkozy and former rapper is FINALLY gonna wear an electronic tag. Just like he said on this song "at the moment, I have the tag, and I'm making it ring, I'm making it ring... ratatattatata"
French thug Nicolas Sarkozy and former rapper is FINALLY gonna wear an electronic tag. Just like he said on this song "at the moment, I have the tag, and I'm making it ring, I'm making it ring... ratatattatata"
One guy suddenly finding himself at the opposite side of the debate that usual while the other guy is bending backwards trying to justify his unethical investments.
Post automatically merged:
I watched that. While Islam might be losing adherents in the Middle East, it is gaining crazy following in Europe. I don't think Islam is going anywhere anytime soon, nor does it need to go. The problem are the violent fundamentalists and not the average muslim.
Post automatically merged:
"Our poison is less poisonous" LOL
Last edited:
:upscale()/2014/11/03/896/n/1922283/477f1ca893489582_tumblr_mar6h9t0Q21ra8x1ao7_500-1414588008.gif)