|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
i don't think it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but remember when dems claimed the primary wasn't rigged? https://twitter.com/threeputtwilly/status/858320141762920448 quote:THE COURT: Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:16 on May 1, 2017 |
#
?
May 1, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't think it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but remember when dems claimed the primary wasn't rigged? Yeah, I mean at a certain point you have to start wondering about fair elections as a concept in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I mean at a certain point you have to start wondering about fair elections as a concept in the US. right. having skimmed through it, counsel for the dems is still claiming the primary was fair, but that even if it wasn't that's ok because the dems charter is as binding as the campaign promises a politician makes. i personally would like our charter to be worth more than toilet paper to the democratic party, but they're arguing it's nothing but toilet paper right now
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:right. having skimmed through it, counsel for the dems is still claiming the primary was fair, but that even if it wasn't that's ok because the dems charter is as binding as the campaign promises a politician makes. i personally would like our charter to be worth more than toilet paper to the democratic party, but they're arguing it's nothing but toilet paper right now When someone says to you, "I could just be picking results out of thin air for bribes, nepotism, or really any arbitrary reason and there is no moral or legal basis to compel me otherwise, so you should feel lucky and appreciative that I am not doing that at all so drop this investigation into my affairs immediately." it doesn't engender a lot of trust. In fact, you might say it does the opposite.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm glad you all are so willing to say that someone who believes trans women are men in dresses has a place in the ideal Democratic Party. They are males in dresses, but I have literally no problem with it and I want to extend every right an protection to them that every othrt demographic enjoys. However I am not going to sexually engage as though they are a woman. So please spare the sane world from your alarmist woke ideology. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Sethex posted:They are males in dresses, but I have literally no problem with it and I want to extend every right an protection to them that every othrt demographic enjoys. actually they aren't "males in dresses", and considering you have "literally no problem with it" you should be referring to them as their preferred gender and not something insensitive like males in dresses. thanks
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
transitioning is a long, painstaking and socially alienating process way harsher than coming out of the closet. people who are brave enough to make that jump do not deserve to be slandered as "males in dresses"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Ugh, can you make another thread for your ignorant backwards-rear end bigotry and keep your trash personality out of this one thanks. LeJackal posted:When someone says to you, "I could just be picking results out of thin air for bribes, nepotism, or really any arbitrary reason and there is no moral or legal basis to compel me otherwise, so you should feel lucky and appreciative that I am not doing that at all so drop this investigation into my affairs immediately." it doesn't engender a lot of trust. I saw this argument in earnest during the primaries. Like okay great you're a private organization and you have the legal right to play favorites and reward cronies, but have you forgotten that you still need people to like and trust you in order to win elections. Oops.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't think it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but remember when dems claimed the primary wasn't rigged?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ugh, can you make another thread for your ignorant backwards-rear end bigotry and keep your trash personality out of this one thanks. Wait wait I have a Jeff Goldblum meme for this. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Sethex posted:They are males in dresses, but I have literally no problem with it and I want to extend every right an protection to them that every othrt demographic enjoys. The gently caress is this. Get out of this party.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Sethex posted:They are males in dresses, but I have literally no problem with it and I want to extend every right an protection to them that every othrt demographic enjoys. Wow, how the gently caress did you time travel from the 40's?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Sethex posted:However I am not going to sexually engage as though they are a woman. First, no one here asked you to do so. In fact, don't try to defend your bigotry by saying that zealous social justice warriors asked you to do so, either, as people often do. Second, don't flatter yourself. Third, keep your bigotry to yourself. When your thorough-thought opinion is "_______s disgust me, but I'll vote for their rights anyway", what else can you expect but what other people have already replied? Go to another thread, go to another website if you have to do it, but if you support "the same protections" like you claim, expressing that sentiment does nothing to further that and only emboldens people who want to tear down those protections.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:actually they aren't "males in dresses", and considering you have "literally no problem with it" you should be referring to them as their preferred gender and not something insensitive like males in dresses. thanks Sorry, for me I consider male an female a sex thing not a gender thing, my mistakr if the terminology doesnt meet yours  I don't really think transubstantiation works for gender politics. Sethex fucked around with this message at 14:31 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Sorry, for me I consider male an female a sex thing not a gender thing, my mistakr if the terminology doesnt meet yours gently caress off, rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Third, keep your bigotry to yourself. When your thorough-thought opinion is "_______s disgust me, but I'll vote for their rights anyway", what else can you expect but what other people have already replied? Go to another thread, go to another website if you have to do it, but if you support "the same protections" like you claim, expressing that sentiment does nothing to further that and only emboldens people who want to tear down those protections. Nah im good. I think its more sensible to expect people to treat a person as they are, an not as they ought to be. So as is the tragedy of being a short dude or the product of 'outside the realm of control' anomaly you will never get even a plurality of the world's cultures to act within the mores you've deemed very important. (In our lifetime) So just be chill an relax brah Not everything needs to be a fight.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Sorry, for me I consider male an female a sex thing not a gender thing, my mistakr if the terminology doesnt meet yours even from a genetic standpoint that's a straight out wrongheaded perception of the world and sexuality. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome#definition quote:Swyer syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development. Sexual development is usually determined by an individual's chromosomes; however, in Swyer syndrome, sexual development does not match the affected individual's chromosomal makeup. but that doesn't matter much. you claim you respect transgender people but don't have the courtesy or decency of referring to them without slurs, that's hosed up regardless, this is the democrats thread, not the "i think transgender people are males in dresses thread" so take it somewhere else
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Condiv posted:even from a genetic standpoint that's a straight out wrongheaded perception of the world and sexuality. Seriously, "the sex chromosomes don't always match up with the gender expressed in the phenotype" is literal Biology 101.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Not everything needs to be a fight. You made it a fight, idiot. I meant it when I said that bigotry has no place here. That includes transphobia. Don't come back. Condiv posted:i don't think it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but remember when dems claimed the primary wasn't rigged? That's, uh...damning. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 16:01 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's, uh...damning. lol if you didn't already think that
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You made it a fight, idiot. I meant it when I said that bigotry has no place here. That includes transphobia. Don't come back. they aren't wrong tbh, parties are private organizations and they can run their primaries however gently caress they want if they want to cancel primaries altogether they can do that too
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol if you didn't already think that Of course I did, you smug tool, I just didn't think they would admit it that unmistakably. e: \/\/\/exactly this\/\/\/
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Typo posted:they aren't wrong tbh, parties are private organizations and they can run their primaries however gently caress they want
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Shutting down debate on if something SHOULD be done because it's ok by the rules is really irritating. It reminds me of the police threads where a young guy would get shot after being dragged out of his car after flashing his high beams at a cop and the debate would shift to "well see flashing your high beams is not actually legal so the end result where the cop shoots this 20 year old on side of the road is totally reasonable." Like some people just don't understand that people are mad at the rules that allow this to happen rather than that the rules were broken in some way.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Typo posted:they aren't wrong tbh, parties are private organizations and they can run their primaries however gently caress they want ehhhh, i dunno if that's actually the case. we'll find out with this court case, but the question here is if the party is obligated to obey its charter under or face fraud charges
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Radish posted:Shutting down debate on if something SHOULD be done because it's ok by the rules is really irritating. It reminds me of the police threads where a young guy would get shot after being dragged out of his car after flashing his high beams at a cop and the debate would shift to "well see flashing your high beams is not actually legal so the end result where the cop shoots this 20 year old on side of the road is totally reasonable." Like some people just don't understand that people are mad at the rules that allow this to happen rather than that the rules were broken in some way.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Glad to see the mods are getting wise to Effectronica's game.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:they aren't wrong tbh, parties are private organizations and they can run their primaries however gently caress they want If they have a charter of rules for internal procedures, then they should be absolutely legally liable for not following them. If they are not found legally liable, then it means the main institutions of American democracy are held to a lower degree of accountability than random NGOs.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:This is the "if you commit a logical fallacy you automatically lose the debate" nerd logic, but applied to probable cause and police brutality.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If they are not found legally liable, then it means the main institutions of American democracy are held to a lower degree of accountability than random NGOs. hate to break it to you but...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If they have a charter of rules for internal procedures, then they should be absolutely legally liable for not following them. sure, then legislate a federal law that says so
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I just didn't think they would admit it that unmistakably. It's amazing what comes out when money's on the line isn't it? See also: Fox News admitting that they're not actually news.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't really see how you can commit a logical fallacy and win a debate.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it's impossible for a human being to put their biases and logical fallacies aside. I mean, have you ever looked at a list of logical fallacies? Try to make an argument without checking one of those boxes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm talking about nerds online being like "A-ha! You committed the Arabian Keyhole fallacy! Therefore your entire argument is invalid, and my thesis that women are not people is now officially the Truth." edit: If anything the fact that people have bothered to name the weaknesses in your arguments should be telling you that you need to address those weaknesses, not that the criticisms of your arguments are somehow invalid just because they've been named. twodot fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, but if the Arabian Keyhole fallacy is a fallacy, and your argument contains it, then your argument is invalid. That's how arguments and fallacies work. If you need fallacies to argue against people that think women aren't people, then the problem rests on you. Not necessarily. The fallacy affects only assertions flowing from the point in which it occurred. It doesn't retroactively invalidate previous assertions, not is it really relevant if it was made e.g. in some tangential aside. You wouldn't cut down a whole tree because one branch was crooked.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, but if the Arabian Keyhole fallacy is a fallacy, and your argument contains it, then your argument is invalid. That's how arguments and fallacies work. If you need fallacies to argue against people that think women aren't people, then the problem rests on you. I'm pretty sure you two are talking past one another but ultimately agree. Arguments shouldn't be discounted simply because of obscure technicalities. Majorian fucked around with this message at 16:39 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Not necessarily. The fallacy affects only assertions flowing from the point in which it occurred. It doesn't retroactively invalidate previous assertions, not is it really relevant if it was made e.g. in some tangential aside. You wouldn't cut down a whole tree because one branch was crooked. edit: Majorian posted:I'm pretty sure you two are talking past one another but ultimately agree. Arguments shouldn't be discounted simply because of obscure technicalities.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
There's also a pretty big difference between formal and informal fallacies. The former are logical show stoppers if your argument relies upon it as the logical structure is just broken, while the latter is has more to do with things like a bad conclusion or the characteristics of the premises.
AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 16:49 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah but trees grow hosed up branches because biology is weird. Why is a person constructing arguments that irrelevant to their own point? because humans aren't perfect or robots? making a mistake when constructing an argument is something that happens to human beings
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:38
|
|